Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. BATEY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed men have been provided with employment by the Commissioner of the depressed areas?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The duty of the Commissioner is to promote the economic development and social improvement of the special areas, and in the expenditure of the grants which he is now making for that purpose to local authorities and others it is obvious that employment both direct and indirect on a considerable scale will be afforded. From the mere facts of the case it follows that no estimate can usefully be given at this moment of the success, in terms of the numbers employed, which has attended the Commissioner's efforts.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister anticipate that he will be in a position later to give an estimate of the number of men employed?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will realise that a great deal of the expenditure of the Commissioner will be in respect of grants to local authorities and that another large amount will be in respect of agricultural experiments. It is not anticipated that the Commissioner himself will give any substantial amount of direct employment.

Mr. BATEY: Was not the chief object to find employment for unemployed men,
and could the Minister tell us as soon as possible how many unemployed men have been found work?

Mr. STANLEY: I would like to repeat the warning, which I gave to the House at the time of the passage of the Bill, that the success of the Commissioner is not to be measured merely by the amount of temporary employment on work schemes that he gives to individual applicants.

Mr. TINKER: Can the Minister give us later on a statement upon the work of the Commissioner?

Mr. STANLEY: I am in communication with the Commissioner about the issuing of periodic statements on the progress made.

ARMY RESERVISTS.

Mr. BATEY: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Unemployment Assistance Board in the county of Durham have issued an instruction that where an ex-service man receives a quarterly pension one-half will be treated as income and set against the needs of the household, thereby paying no benefit for one week; and can he state what steps he proposes to take to remedy this?

Mr. STANLEY: I presume that the hon. Member refers to quarterly payments of Army reserve pay. The instructions given by the board for the treatment of this resource are set out in the Appendix to the White Paper of January, 1935 (Cmd. 4791). I may add, however, that under the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Act, the transitional payments rate will be applied if in any week it would be more favourable to the applicant. I have no power to vary either the regulations or the Temporary Provisions Act.

Mr. BATEY: If the Minister has not already the power, will he consider taking power to do it? Is he not aware that this man was for 18 years on foreign service, and that his pension is preventing him from receiving unemployment pay?

Mr. STANLEY: I will certainly be glad to hear from the hon. Member any information he has on that or upon any other point in connection with the future of the regulations.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the single man had no pay for three weeks, that he only got 3s. for the fourth week and that he had to live on the air for three weeks? Is not that the instruction in the memorandum?

Mr. DENVILLE: 8 and 9.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether, in view of the recent announcement that all reserve men are under service of contract, he will give instructions to all authorities dealing with transitional benefit to treat reserve pay as earned income and not as a pension; and
(2) how many authorities ignore a reservist's pay, and how many take it into consideration when assessing a man's needs under transitional benefit?

Mr. STANLEY: Transitional benefit and transitional payments are no longer paid. If my hon. Friend's inquiry has reference to allowances granted by the Unemployment Assistance Board, the reply is that reserve pay is treated more favourably than earned income. If my hon. Friend wishes to know what practice is followed by local authorities in dealing with applications for out-door relief, his question should be addressed to the Minister of Health.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. GROVES: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is still his intention to accept from Members of the House representations respecting treatment or determinations made by the Unemployment Assistance Board; whether he will state what period of time is expected to elapse before replies to queries may be expected from the London area; whether he is aware that the queries submitted by the Member for the Stratford Division (Mr. Groves) four weeks ago are still not dealt with; and will he give an explanation for this delay?

Mr. STANLEY: I am always prepared to do everything I can to assist hon. Members in this matter. The hon. Member will realise, however, that during the past few weeks there has been an exceptional pressure of work. As regards the cases which the hon. Member gave me, I have received a reply from the board which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Mr. GROVES: Thank you very much.

Mr. MABANE: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour on what average number of applicants throughout the year is based the estimate (Class V, 9) of £50,000,000 for unemployment assistance allowances for the financial year 1935–36?

Mr. STANLEY: I assume my hon. Friend refers to the estimate of £50,000,000 for unemployment assistance allowances (Class V, 9). After allowing for the appropriate cost of administration this estimate would provide for the payment of about 790,000 claimants at the present average weekly rate of payment.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (WOMEN CLEANERS).

Mr. THORNE: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the reason why all the women cleaners at the employment exchanges who work less than 48 hours per week have been refused an advance in wages; whether he is aware that those working 42 and 44 hours per week are not deemed to be full-time employés; and whether his Department are taking the case before the industrial court for a ruling?

Mr. STANLEY: No change in the rates of pay or conditions of service of women cleaners in employment exchanges is under consideration. There have been certain changes in connection with male cleaners, and if that is what the hon. Member has in mind perhaps he will communicate with me.

STATISTICS.

Mr. MABANE: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour how many of those registered as unemployed on the last available date are borne by the Unemployment Fund under the terms of Part I of the Unemployment Act, 1934?

Mr. STANLEY: At 25th March, 1935, there were 1,042,524 insured persons on the register with claims admitted for benefit, or with claims under consideration under Part I of the Unemployment Act, 1934.

HOSIERY AND UNDERWEAR TRADES.

Duchess of ATHOLL (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE): 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the figures for unemployment in the hosiery and underwear trades for the first quarter of 1935 as compared with a similar period in 1934, as applied to the
whole country and as applied to Leicester only, and the figures for unemployment in these trades for 1933 and 1934, respectively?

Mr. STANLEY: I am having the information extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as the figures are available.

HOURS OF WORK (REDUCTION).

Miss WARD: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any account of the interviews he has recently had with various groups of industrialists in the engineering, iron and steel, and other industries relating to the shortening of hours?

Mr. STANLEY: A useful and friendly preliminary discussion took place with both trades, in the course of which it was agreed that the matters in discussion should be studied further by the. trades and the Ministry of Labour, in close consultation.

Miss WARD: Are conversations proceeding with any other branches of industry?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes, I recently issued an invitation to some other industries to meet me.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Has not the policy of shortening hours been a grotesque failure in the United States of America?

Mr. STANLEY: I would make plain that I am not only dealing with the possibility of shortening hours in those industries but with the possibility of their absorbing into their trade, by any means whatsoever, many of those who are now unemployed.

Miss WARD: Can the Minister say when he will be in a position to make a statement on this matter to the House?

Mr. STANLEY: No.

WAGES AGREEMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to discuss at his industrial conferences the question of giving statutory authority to wages' agreements on the lines of recent legislation in the cotton industry?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: Does my right hon. Friend mean that he would refuse to allow this to be discussed if brought forward by any industry?

Mr. STANLEY: It is not of course germane to the particular subjects that are under discussion. If any industry wishes to raise the matter, I shall be only too glad to discuss it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. WEST: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest at Chertsey where the jury decided that the killing of one cyclist and the serious injury of another was caused by the negligent driving of a motorist; and whether he can explain why no action has been taken by the police against the motorist concerned?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The hon. Member no doubt refers to the case of James Bispham. I have obtained a report from the chief constable of Surrey from which it appears that at the inquest into this death, which was held at Windsor, the coroner's jury returned a verdict of "accidental death" and added a rider that the driver of the motor car involved was guilty of negligence, not however amounting to criminal negligence. The chief constable informs me that this accident was not witnessed by the police, but the chief constable has carefully considered all the circumstances and has come to the conclusion that the available evidence is not sufficiently strong to justify the police in instituting criminal proceedings against the driver of the car concerned. The question whether or not the circumstances of a particular case are such as to justify police proceedings is one for the responsible chief officer of police to decide.

Mr. WEST: Does not the Minister consider that in all cases where there is evidence of negligent driving resulting in the death of some person on the road a prosecution ought to be instituted by the police?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, it is easy to express a general opinion if each case is not to be dealt with individually. As I have said, this case was considered.

Mr. LUNN: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that 238,946 persons were killed or injured on our roads in 1934; and whether he will take steps to ensure that more severe penalties shall be inflicted on all those convicted of driving to the danger of the public or in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am, of course, aware of the total to which the hon. Member refers, but it must not be inferred that all the deaths and injuries on the roads were attributable to persons driving motor vehicles dangerously or when under the influence of intoxicating liquor. As regards the second part of the question, the law provides substantial penalties for the offences in question, and it is for the court to decide what is the appropriate penalty to impose having regard to the circumstances of the individual case.

Mr. LUNN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is necessary to take more drastic powers to deal with these offenders, on account of the ghastly slaughter which is taking place on our roads?

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a number of cases recently people have been killed by motorists who have been convicted of driving dangerously or under the influence of drink, and the penalties have been fines of two guineas, suspension of the licence for six months, and so on?

Mr. LEVY: Will the Home Secretary make an investigation, through the insurance companies, with regard to accident-prone drivers? There are only about 10 or 15 per cent of them.

Mr. LUNN: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that of the total of 238,946 persons killed or injured on the roads in 1934 65,629 were concerning private cars and 8,615 public service vehicles; and whether there are any means which can be instituted by him to see that drivers of private cars shall be not less careful than drivers of public service vehicles?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): While it is true that there was one accident for every 20 private cars as compared with one for every five public service vehicles, it must be borne in mind that a true comparison would necessitate an estimate of the accident incidence per car mile and that there are other considerations which have to be taken into account. The standard of driving of public service vehicles has progressively improved as a result of the special test which drivers of these vehicles have to undergo, and I am hopeful that a similar result will ultimately follow from the imposition of the driving tests for drivers of all motor vehicles. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that driving is an art in which those who engage should, in the interest of their own and of the public safety, take the greatest pains to make themselves proficient.

Mr. LUNN: Am I to take it that the hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact that there is a higher standard of efficiency, and that greater care is taken by drivers of public service vehicles than is taken by drivers of private cars?

Mr. WEST: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account, in arriving at these ratios, the increased mileage of the public service vehicle, and, if he has taken that fact into account, does it not show from the figures published that service drivers are much more careful than private drivers?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have stated the considerations which should be borne in mind, and I do not think that I can say anything further than that.

MOTOR DRIVERS (TEST).

Mr. CHARLES TAYLOR: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is necessary for a person undergoing a driving test to use his or her own car; and what arrangements have been made for those persons who have no car of their own and who, having taken out a driving licence after 1st April, 1934, wish to renew their licence for 1935?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A candidate is required to bring a motor vehicle in proper condition, but there is no requirement that it shall be his own.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the case of the unemployed lorry driver or chauffeur who obviously cannot
afford to hire a car, and yet cannot get employment unless he renews his licence? I think that the hon. Gentleman is agreed that there is a definite ease of hardship in these cases.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have not anticipated that there will be any cases of hardship. Anybody applying for a test which takes only a very short space of time can bring his own car or somebody else's car.

Mr. LUNN: If it is to be agreed that any person can pick up a car and drive it along the road, why not agree to increasing the number of accidents from what is the large number to-day.

Mr. THORNE: Are we to understand from the reply that the owners of cars when they want to obtain a certificate are not compelled to bring their own cars for the test? Is it because they are ashamed to bring their own cars?

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has given his consent, under Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, in every case where the local authority has given a direction that for the purposes of the 30-miles-per-hour speed-limit certain roads shall be deemed to be roads in a built-up area notwithstanding that a system of lighting is not provided thereon, or whether his consent has only been given in certain cases?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir: I have refused my consent in a number of cases to orders applying the 30-mile per hour speed limit to unlit roads.

Sir W. BRASS: Am I to understand from the reply of the hon. Gentleman that certain roads are restricted at the moment without the consent of the Minister and that it is not legal?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Are we to understand from the reply that, in all cases where there are speed limit signs on roads which have no lighting upon them, they have already had the express consent of the Minister for signs to be put upon them?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is the general assumption, but I prefer to have notice of the question.

Sir W. BRASS: Surely, if. the restriction sign is on, the Minister must have given his consent?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, that should be so.

SUNDAY TRADING.

Mr. GROVES: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the growing practice to exhibit and sell meat on Sundays; and whether, as the consequences of the limitation of such practices during 1914–18 were beneficial to all concerned, he will consider steps to make such practices punishable?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no recent information as to the practice of opening butchers' shops on Sunday. As I have stated in reply to previous questions, I cannot hold out any present prospect, so far as the Government are concerned, of the introduction of legislation to amend the law relating to Sunday trading.

Mr. GROVES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that my question does not state that the shops are open but that meat is exposed for sale? Is he aware that it is a growing practice in London, sometimes in the streets and not necessarily in the shops?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member would discuss the matter with me.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the importance of the question of week-end trade on Sunday, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to take steps to have an inquiry, in order that we may know the facts?

ALIENS.

Mr. CLARRY: 19.
asked the Home Secretary the number of political refugees in this country; and whether any condition is imposed and enforced that they shall take no part in political activities of any sort while accepting the asylum of this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is impossible to ascertain how many of the foreign visitors who come here for varying periods and give various reasons for their coming may have been influenced to a greater or lesser degree by political considerations, and it is not the practice to ask such visitors
to abstain from political activities. If, however, an alien abuses the hospitality of this country by engaging in subversive or other undesirable activities, I should certainly consider the question of his removal from the country.

Mr. CLARRY: Would it not be a reasonable condition to impose on visitors whom the right hon. Gentleman thought might be liable to take part in subversive activities?

Mr. LYONS: 21.
asked the Home Secretary how many foreign political organisations, or organisations supporting foreign political systems, are known to exist in this country; and whether he will take immediate steps to close them down?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In this free country there are no doubt many organisations of the kind referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, though it is not certain whether all, or any, of them would describe themselves in these terms. The activities of such organisations are kept under review by the responsible authorities, and appropriate action would be taken should occasion arise.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is not Toryism itself of foreign origin?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether Dr. Dora Fabian was threatened by the police with deportation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. Dr. Fabian came to this country in September, 1933, for a visit, and was first granted an extension of her stay till November, 1933. She then applied for and was granted a six-months prolongation to the 31st May. No communication was subsequently received from her or on her behalf up to the time of her death, and at no time was she asked to leave the country or threatened with deportation.

Mr. MABANE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make as to the attitude of his Department with regard to the operations in this country of C. Artner and P. Lewinsky, as a result of the investigations conducted by his Department?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The result of the investigations made by the Home Office
in this case, and the action which has been taken, have been explained to the hon. Member in the letter which has been written to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. MABANE: Can the Home Secretary say whether there are any special reasons for allowing these aliens to work in this country? Owing to the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS).

Mr. MANDER: 20.
asked the Home Secretary what arrangements have been made for enabling life-saving services such as lifeboat men, coastguard men, firemen, and others to take part in the Jubilee celebrations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The celebrations are on a local basis and the members of the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of taking part in the celebrations in their own localities.

Mr. MANDER: Yes, but apart from the local arrangements, are any national arrangements being made?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: Is not life-saving as important as life taking?

Mr. GLOSSOP: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is taking any steps to ensure that all private stands erected for the Jubilee celebrations in the Metropolis are safe, so as to prevent any possibility of the period of national rejoicing being marred by any fatality occasioned by the collapse of a stand?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no jurisdiction in the matter. Responsibility for private stands is shared between the London County Council, the City of London and the Metropolitan Borough Councils, according to the nature of the construction of the stand. I have no doubt that these authorities have borne in mind the necessity for guarding against any risk of accident through the collapse of a stand.

Captain HEILGERS: 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether arrangements can be made for school children to receive milk when they are attending celebrations in connection with His Majesty's Silver Jubilee, having regard to the fact that the children will not assemble in their schools on those days?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Yes, Sir. Where the necessary arrangements can be made locally for milk which would normally be consumed in the schools to be supplied to children assembled under proper supervision in connection with Jubilee celebrations, such an arrangement will be regarded by the Milk Marketing Board and the Ministry as coming within the scope of the milk in schools scheme.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether arrangements can be made for school children to receive milk when they are attending the celebrations in connection with His Majesty's Silver Jubilee, having regard to the fact that the children will not assemble in their schools on those days?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Yes, Sir. Where the necessary arrangements can be made locally for milk which would normally be consumed in the schools to be supplied to children assembled under proper supervision in connection with the Jubilee celebrations such arrangements will be regarded as coming within the scope of the milk in schools schemes in Scotland.

LIFT ACCIDENT, MANCHESTER.

Mr. THORNE: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the factory inspector in connection with the lift accident at the Calico Printers' Association, Oxford Street, Manchester, when the lift crashed from the first floor to the basement and eight persons were injured; whether he can state the cause of the accident; and whether automatic safety devices were attached to the lift?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have obtained a report on this accident. It was due apparently to the failure of a forged steel strap which formed part of the gear carrying the cage of the hoist. The cause
of this failure has not yet been ascertained. The lift was fitted with automatic safety gear, but the circumstances of the accident were such that the gear did not come into action.

EDUCATION (NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any steps are being taken to compensate in some way those non-provided schools which, owing to a serious fall in attendance, will suffer hardship from the reduction of grant from the movement of the population due to slum clearance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The managers of non-provided schools receive no grant from the Board of Education. The cost of maintenance of these schools falls upon the local education authorities, and the grant payable to any authority in respect of elementary education is based upon the whole of the authority's service, and is not calcuated separately for each school.

Mr. CHORLTON: Does not the amount paid to the local authority reach the non-provided schools in the end?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I understood that the hon. Member's question referred to grants paid to local authorities in respect of maintenance—for instance, for salaries.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

WRITTLE, ESSEX (PROPOSED KNACKER'S YARD).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN ENDERSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Writtle, Essex, are gravely concerned by a proposal to establish a knacker's yard, for the slaughter of tubercular animals, within 400 yards of the village and the decision of the rural district council to sell two acres of land for, the purpose; and can the inhabitants be assured that he will not approve the sale without first giving the representatives of the parish an opportunity of personally pleading their case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 29.
asked the Minister of Health what active steps are being taken by his officers to deal with the black spots of maternal mortality?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston), on the 28th March, of which I am sending him a copy. The answer there given describes the special steps which are being taken in the areas where the rate of maternal mortality has been persistently high.

CHINESE EGGS.

Mr. HASLAM: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is conducting further bacteriological examinations into Chinese eggs not in shell as imported into this country; whether such inquiries include both disease producing micro-organisms and those causing putrefaction; and whether he is prepared to publish the results in due course?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend proposes to have certain further examinations made; the investigations have been directed both to disease-producing micro-organisms and also to other non-pathogenic organisms, among which putrefactive organisms are included. My right hon. Friend does not at present see any need to publish the results, but he will be happy to furnish my hon. Friend with further details if he desires them.

Mr. HASLAM: While thanking my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply, may I ask him if he will ask the Minister, in view of the very considerable quantity of these imports, seriously to consider making known the investigation which he is conducting?

Mr. WELLS: Can my hon. Friend say when this information is likely to be available?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I cannot say. I will take note of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam).

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 30.
asked the Minister of Health how many rejections took place of applications for old age contributory pensions at 65 owing to their unemployment record during 1932, 1933, and 1934?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No person who had been insured for four years and had paid 160 contributions lost his right to an old age pension during the years specified by reason of prolonged unemployment. The number of persons whose claims failed because they did not possess these qualifications is not known, but must have been very small.

HOUSING, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the officers of his Department are impressing upon the West Ham County Borough Council, in connection with the construction of 30 working-class houses for the re-housing of families whose dwellings have to be demolished in connection with the widening of Stratford High Street, a reduction of cubic space about 10 per cent. upon the submitted plans; and, as the type of house submitted is identical with those previously erected in connection with other sections of the High Street widening, whether he will reconsider the matter with a view of the acceptance of the West Ham proposals?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Certain informal communications on this matter have passed between officers of the borough council and officers of any right hon. Friend's Department, but no proposals of the council have as yet been submitted to him for consideration.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a reply was received by the county borough of West Ham, and that I am chairman of the committee which received the formal letter; and that, therefore, the negotiations were not informal? Is he aware that the proposal with regard to the reduction of cubic space came from his Department, and that West Ham objects?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I understand. that there has been an informal discussion, and we are awaiting the final proposals of the council.

PUBLIC UTILITIES, SOUTH LANCASHIRE.

Mr. CHORLTON: 33.
asked the Minister of Health if he will, in the near future, address a letter to the authorities in the South Lancashire and adjoining districts industrial area, calling them to a conference with the object of considering the formation of a regional planning council to advise on the better co-ordinated working of all the public utilities of the area?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: In view of the arrangements made by the Manchester and District Joint Town Planning Committee, which was communicated to my hon. Friend in reply to his question of 14th February last, my right hon. Friend does not as at present advised see any ground for intervention of this kind on his part.

Mr. CHORLTON: If no progress is made with this correlation of districts, will my hon. Friend see that something is done in the way of writing a letter of that kind later on?.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think we must wait and see, and let this committee come to a conclusion before we can go on any further.

HYDROCARBON OIL DUTY (TURPENTINE).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of hydrocarbon-oil duty which is raised in respect of oil of turpentine?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): My hon. Friend will find the information he requires on page 114 of the last Annual Report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Command Paper 4740).

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do these statistics relate to the financial year ending on the 31st March, 1935, or do they relate to the previous year, 1933–34?

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any return has been made of the amount of unclaimed dividends on goods sold by the co-operatives since 1914, and of the profits on sales to non-members which have not been distributed to members?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. The returns made by co-operative societies to the Registrar of Friendly Societies do not contain the particulars referred to in the question.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. LOFTUS: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increasing depression of the trawl-fishing industry of Lowestoft leading to the laying-up of many boats and the consequent increase of unemployment, he will now consider requesting the Sea-fish Commission to expedite the completion and issue of their report upon the white fish industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the main cause of the recent depression in the trawl-fishing industry at Lowestoft is shortage of fish on their usual fishing grounds. I hope, however, that this condition may be only temporary. The Sea-Fish Commission have a very wide field of inquiry, and I think we must leave the completion and issue of their Report to their discretion.

Mr. LOFTUS: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the requests made to the Herring Board to consider increasing the number of trade representatives, he will, if any such increase is made, ensure adequate representation for the English herring industry, which is now represented by only one member out of the five trade representatives?

Mr. ELLIOT: Pursuant to representation made by the Herring Industry Board, an Order has been made by the appropriate Ministers to vary the composition of the Board by the addition of one member having a special knowledge of the industry, and this Order has been laid before Parliament in accordance with Section 1, Sub-section (5) of the Herring Industry Act. The intention is to add to the Board a practical fisherman whose experience it is thought may be of service to the Board. Any further representation from the Board with a view to the variation of its composition will, of course, receive the serious consideration of the Ministers concerned, but my colleagues and I are confident that the trade members of the Board are endeavouring, and will continue to endeavour, to serve the interests of the
herring industry as a whole, and will not regard themselves as representatives of divergent and competing sectional or local interests.

Mr. LOFTUS: Is it not a fact that at a conference held last October at which the right hon. Gentleman was present the English trade representatives asked for adequate English representation and were assured that they would have it; and does the right hon. Gentleman consider that one trade representative out of six is adequate, in view of the fact that the English fleet comprises more than one-third of the total?

Mr. ELLIOT: I cannot accept the suggestion that there is only one English representative out of six, and my hon. Friend must take into account the independent members who number two English members out of three.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: In order that a fisherman may really be a practical fisherman, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he is an Englishman.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that Scottish fishermen think that the English fishermen are over represented on this Board?

Mr. HARBORD: In view of the profound dissatisfaction with the representation of the great herring industry in England, will my right hon. Friend say whether he is now precluded from recommending to the new Board further representation? Will he answer that point, and, if the answer is in the affirmative, will he, in view of the very great dissatisfaction with such representation, consider the matter further with a view to giving increased representation for that industry.

Mr. ELLIOT: I hope very much that the Board will not divide itself on the lines of England against Scotland or vice versa. The provisions of the scheme now being examined by the Board will have to come before the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself before submission to Parliament. My hon. Friend may rest assured that every consideration will be given to ensuring the equitable working of the scheme for the industry as a whole.

Mr. LOFTUS: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of claims allowed to herring drifters under the fitting-out allowance authorised in 1934, and the the total and average grants paid or authorised for the English and Scottish fleets, respectively?

Mr. ELLIOT: Sixty-three grants, amounting to £1,890, have been paid in respect of English steam drifters, the average amount of the grant being £30. I am informed that in Scotland 309 grants have been paid in respect of steam drifters, the total amount being £11,683, and the average £37 16s. In addition, 50 Scottish motor drifters have received grants amounting to £925, an average of £18 10s. No English motor drifters of the prescribed size took part in the fishing.

Mr. HARBORD: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the wording, or the exact terms, of the resolution or resolutions passed by the Herring Board with reference to the appointment of an additional number of members?

Mr. ELLIOT: The resolution in question, which was passed by the Herring Industry Board on 4th April, reads as follows:—

1. That on the case presented by the Scottish Producers' Association the Board are not satisfied that any variation in the constitution of the Board is justified.
2. That, however, in view of the representations made to the Board by the Ministers, and having regard to the importance to the industry as a whole of bringing the scheme into operation at the earliest possible moment, the Board are prepared to represent to the appropriate Ministers that the composition of the Board should be varied by the addition of one Member having a special knowledge of the industry.
3. That the Ministers be informed accordingly and that at the same time it be pointed out to them that in the opinion of the Board this decision may well lead to similar applications from other sections of the trade which it might be difficult to resist and which, if acceded to, would produce an impossible position.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE,

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.

Major Sir ALAN MCLEAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give an estimate of the respective home production of beef and of mutton and lamb in the year 1934?

Mr. ELLIOT: The latest figures available relate to the year ended 31st May, 1934, for which production in Great Britain of beef and of mutton and lamb was estimated at 10,592,000 and 5,632,000 cwts., respectively.

MILK (SCHOOL SUPPLIES).

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: 45.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what amount, if any, of the cost of the milk supplied to school children is paid by the milk producer by deduction in arriving at the pool price, and what amount has been paid out of Government subsidy?

Mr. ELLIOT: In respect of the first 18 million gallons consumed in the year ending 30th September next, one-half of the loss incurred in supplying milk to school children under the Milk in Schools Scheme is borne by the Exchequer under Section 11 of the Milk Act; the other half is borne, through the Milk Marketing Board, by the whole body of producers through the pool price for milk sales. Up to the end of February, 1935, 10,159,000 gallons had been consumed, and the total loss incurred by the sale of this gallonage at 1s. per gallon was £448,000, of which one-half is borne by the Milk Marketing Board. This figure, however, represents the actual cost of the scheme on the supposition that all the milk consumed by the children would otherwise have fetched the highest liquid price. In fact, but for the scheme some of the increased sales of milk to the children would have gone into low-price category manufacture for cheese and butter, realising with the Government grant under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Milk Act only 6d. a gallon. To this extent, therefore, sales of milk under the Scheme have represented an increment to rather than a deduction from producers' returns.

ACCREDITED MILK SCHEME.

Captain HEILGERS (for Major MILLS): 34.
asked the Minister of Health
whether he will, as a temporary or permanent measure, authorise such rural and urban district councils within the administrative county of Southampton as apply to him to grant licences to sell Grade A milk under the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1923, in order to avoid unequal treatment of milk producers who desire to qualify for the bonus under the accredited milk scheme, in view of the fact that the Hampshire County Council does not at present exercise its powers under the above Order and has no meeting at which it can decide to do so until 13th May, and that at present only a small proportion of the district councils in the county can grant these licences?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the county council upon this matter and, pending their decision, he does not think it desirable to authorise any further district councils to grant licences to producers of Grade A milk.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. LECKIE: 52.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, owing to the restrictions of the Royal Warrant, the pension allowance that was in issue to Thomas Davis, son of the late Private Charles Davis, No. 9,802, South Stafford-shire Regiment, who was killed on the 25th September, 1915, ceased at the age of 21, although the orphan is suffering from the effects of encephalitis and is consequently unable to contribute in any way to his self-support; and whether, in view of this fact, he will consider amending the Royal Warrant with the object of ensuring that allowances are continued to totally incapacitated war orphans for so long as such incapacity exists?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The facts of the case referred to are as stated. On the more general issue raised I would say that the Government are not prepared to amend the Royal Pension Warrants in the manner proposed. A series of practically identical questions on this subject have recently been addressed to me in this House. The Warrant provisions in question involve an important principle which has been maintained by all successive Governments since the War. This principle is
that, in the case of children with living parents being pensioned ex-service men or widows, the additional allowance or pension for the child cannot be extended beyond the date when the child attains its majority. A departure from this principle would involve serious reactions in many directions. It would mean the grant of life pensions to men and women on the score of infirmities which are in no way connected with war service and which consequently would not be pensionable in the case of their fathers, the ex-service men. Morover, they are already provided for, under statutory powers, by the public social services of this country. It would involve, in fact, the creation of a second generation of adult war pensioners, a development which I do not think the House would view with favour. I may add that the issue raised in these questions is not a new one. Pensions in similar cases have been going out of payment for many years past and the proposal, if adopted, would mean the revival of cases which have been off the Pension List for 12 years or more.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM - BULLER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his reference to "identical questions," that these questions have been organised?

Major TRYON: Yes, Sir. An ex-service organisation has to my knowledge during the last two months taken steps from London to secure the putting of a series of identical questions at arranged intervals in this House. I am always happy to give any information that hon. Members desire on pensions questions.

Major PROCTER: Does not what the Minister has just told us show that there is great dissatisfaction about pensions administration?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. If there were general dissatisfaction, this House would have shown it long ago. This pension went out of payment under the late Government. If there were general dissatisfaction, it would not be necessary for any organisation from an office in London to get questions put down at definite dates by Members of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

IMPORTED TEXTILE GOODS (RE-EXPORTS).

Major PROCTER: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take to prevent foreign textile goods imported for finishing purpose being re-exported as British made?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Consideration of this question is proceeding, but I regret I am unable at present to add to the answer on the subject which my right hon. Friend gave my hon. and gal-land Friend on 14th March.

Major PROCTER: If I put down a question next week, will the hon. and gallant Member be able to reply then?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot say definitely, but I hope to be able to state something soon.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: When he is making inquiries, will the hon. and gallant Member try to find out whether some of these finishing processes are actually carried on in Lancashire, where this protest comes from?

SCRAP IRON (FOREIGN SALES).

Mr. THORNE: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the scrap iron sellers have to get a permit for the purpose of selling scrap iron to Germany or any other country; whether he can state the amount of scrap iron; and the price per ton that has been sold to Germany for the year ending 1934 to the nearest available date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): No export permit is required from His Majesty's Government for the sale of scrap iron to foreign countries. Purchasers in Germany of scrap iron must, however, obtain a buying permit from the control authorities in that country. During the year 1934 the exports from this country of iron and steel scrap and waste consigned to Germany amounted to 12,976 tons, of an average declared value of 51s. 6d. per ton free on board.

Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Member in mind the price of scrap iron sold in this country and what the Germans are paying, and can he say whether there
has been a big increase in the scrap iron sold to Germany?

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps that question will be put on the Order Paper.

MEAT IMPORTS.

Sir A. MCLEAN: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give particulars of the imports of beef, including meat from imported fat stock, during the year 1934, distinguishing between imports from Empire and foreign sources?

Dr. BURGIN: During the year 1934 the imports of beef into this country consigned from British countries amounted to 2,888,000 cwts., valued at £3,880,000, and from foreign countries to 9,791,000 cwts., valued at £18,178,000. The imports of fat bulls, bullocks and cows for food, which were all consigned from British countries, numbered 104,000 valued at £1,199,000.

Sir A. McLEAN: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give particulars of the imports of mutton and lamb during the year 1934, distinguishing between imports from Empire and foreign sources?

Dr. BURGIN: During the year 1934 the imports of mutton and lamb into this country consigned from British countries amounted to 5,307,000 cwts., valued at £14,649,000, and from foreign countries to 1,386,000 cwts., valued at £3,483,000.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the fact that Government Departments abstain from making application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee is on grounds of constitutional practice or because the Departments regard themselves as debarred by statute from so doing?

Dr. BURGIN: The Import Duties Act requires the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make recommendations regarding import duties and allied matters for consideration by the Treasury and through them by the other Government Departments interested in the subject. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate for a Government Department to make representa
tions to the Committee regarding the advice they should give.

Mr. LYONS: Can the hon. Member tell me whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee has exercised that power on its own initiative or whether in every case it waits until an industry comes to it because of the dire distress in which it finds itself?

Dr. BURGIN: The Import Duties Advisory Committee has power, as has been said time after time, to act on its own initiative and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government whenever it thinks fit to do so.

Mr. LYONS: While thanking my hon. Friend for what he has said, will he answer my question and say whether they have ever exercised the powers which he says they possess?

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down. The answer is not the sort of answer that one carries in one's head.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

JUBILEE PENSION SCHEME, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information as to the intention of the South Wales coal owners with regard to the celebration of the Royal Jubilee?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have been in touch with Mr. Evan Williams who informs me that the following letter was sent yesterday to the South Wales Miners' Federation.

The Monmouthshire and South Wales Coal Owners' Association.

Cardiff.

10th April, 1931.

Oliver Harris, Esquire,

South Wales Miners' Federation,

2, St. Andrew's Crescent,

Cardiff.

Dear Mr. Oliver Harris,

I have submitted your letter of the 6th instant making application for the payment of a day's wages to all the workmen in the coalfield for the Jubilee Holiday on 6th May.

I am instructed to say that while the coal owners of South Wales have every desire to mark in a manner worthy of it, this notable event they hold the view very strongly that this object should be achieved by doing something which may prove of lasting advantage and not by making to those who are in employment a gift, the
benefit of which would quickly vanish and do no enduring good. For this mainly, and for other reasons which I need not mention, they cannot accept the suggestion contained in your letter.

Their desire is that such an occasion as this which has aroused the enthusiasm of the whole nation, should be celebrated by some act on their part the result of which will be of permanent benefit and preferably to those who, having spent their lives in the industry, are in their old age no longer able to give service and receive remuneration for it and are dependent upon such provision as the State makes for them.

The owners' representatives therefore have decided to recommend that a fund of not less than £50,000 be raised by voluntary subscription among the South Wales coal owners which they suggest shall form the nucleus around which a Scheme of Old Age Pensions shall be built up. They invite your Executive Council to appoint a few of its members to co-operate with a similar number on their side in the consideration of the best way in which effect can be given to the project.

They feel that something of real value can thus be done to those whose needs are greatest and who most deserve the consideration of the industry, and they trust that their action will be conducive to a greater appreciation of the true community of interest of employers and employed and to harmony and peace in the coalfield.

Yours faithfully,

IESTYN R. WILLIAMS,

Assistant Secretary.

Mr. HALL: Is my hon. Friend aware that this announcement will give general satisfaction on account of the new principle which has been introduced in connection with the relationship between workpeople and employers? Did I understand the hon. Member to say that details of the scheme are to be negotiated between representatives of the South Wales miners and the coalowners, and that this is a minimum sum?

Mr. BROWN: It is a minimum sum to be negotiated on the terms laid down in the letter, and I am sure that the House will agree that it is a very fine precedent.

Mr. MARTIN: May I ask whether this admirable precedent is to be carried out in any other coalfield?

Mr. BROWN: I should want notice of that question.

Mr. DENVILLE: May I ask whether the Secretary for Mines will pass this on as a recommendation to the coalfields in the north of England?

Mr. BROWN: I am sure that attention will be given to this scheme all over the country.

INTERNATIONAL COLLIERY, BLAENGARW.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 63 and 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of inspections made by His Majesty's inspectors and workmen's examiners at the International Colliery, Blaengarw, Glamorganshire; the nature of the reports; and what action he proposes to take to make the management ensure safe conditions of employment to miners and horses at the colliery;
(2) the cause of the stoppage of work at the International Colliery., Blaengarw, Glamorganshire; whether he will make inquiries into the miners' refusal to work in conditions reported unsafe by His Majesty's inspectors; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Mr. E. BROWN: On the 27th March two workmen's inspectors reported adversely on the state of the ventilation of the straight district in the lower new seam. On the 1st April, the whole of the mine was stopped and work was resumed after further inspections made on the 3rd and 4th April by His Majesty's inspectors, accompanied by the workmen's inspectors. Soon after this district was originally opened up the divisional inspector had impressed on the management the necessity for improved means to ventilate it, and as a result the return airway has been improved. A hard heading is being driven to provide a more direct return airway. During the past 12 months there have been made at this colliery 33 underground inspections by His Majesty's inspectors, including three inspections by an inspector of horses, and there have been 10 inspections on behalf of the workmen. These figures show that very close attention has been paid to the safety of the conditions at this colliery, and that attention must be continued by all concerned until the necessary improvements have been completed.

STATISTICS.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed in the mining industry, and also the number unemployed over the age of 60?

Mr. E. BROWN: At the 30th March, the, number of wage-earners on colliery books was 769,900. I regret that information as to the number unemployed over the age of 60 is not available.

Mr. G. HALL: Will the hon. Member try to get these figures because in the light of the new pension scheme which he has just announced in connection with South Wales they would be very valueable?

Mr. BROWN: I think it very doubtful whether I can get them because unemployment insurance figures cover only those between the ages of 16 and 64.

Mr. MARTIN: Has the hon. Member any idea of the discrepancy between those registered as unemployed in the mining industry and those who no longer have any hope of being employed in that industry?

Mr. BROWN: indicated dissent.

PENSION SCHEMES.

Mr. K. LINDSAY: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information concerning the provision of pensions for miners under schemes operated either by employers or trade unions: what are the total sums distributed; and how many persons are affected?

Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that I have no information.

Mr. LINDSAY: Is it possible for the hon. Member to get some information, because it does exist, and, in view of the important pronouncement he has made with regard to South Wales, it would be very valuable. Will he communicate this to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour as further evidence in favour of a departmental committee to inquire into the whole question?

Mr. BROWN: I think that the difficulty arises from the word "schemes." I know that there are certain cases where this practice obtains, but it is not in terms of a scheme.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is it not possible for the hon. Member to get his inspectors to give this information as there are many schemes in operation in the mining industry?

Mr. BROWN: I will look into the matter, but I am not sure that I can get what the hon. Member wants.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL ARTILLERY (PROMOTION SCHEME).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War
Office how many regular lieutenant-colonels it is intended to appoint to territorial lieutenant-colonel commands; and whether it is proposed that they should have regular Army adjutants?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend's question arises out of the report on promotion of officers of the Royal Artillery, details of which were given to the House last week. At the present time there are no serving regular lieutenant-colonels commanding Territorial Army units, but the terms of the report provide for an increase in the establishment of lieutenant-colonels in the regular Royal Artillery up to a maxium of 10, and of these according to present intention nine may be employed in command of Territorial Army artillery brigades as suitable vacancies occur, e.g., if new Territorial Army artillery brigades are formed or if suitable Territorial Army officers are not available in the existing brigades. As a general rule all Territorial Army units have regular officers appointed to them as adjutants, but where a regular lieutenant-colonel is appointed to command a Territorial Army artillery brigade the intention is that a Territorial Army officer or retired officer should be appointed as his adjutant.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: May I ask whether the salaries of these officers will be a charge on Territorial Army funds or on Regular Army funds?

Mr. HACKING: I should like to have notice of that question.

REMOUNTS

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN (for Major CARVER): 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the action of his department in purchasing 798 remounts from Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State in 1934 as against 662 in 1933, whilst reducing the number purchased in England and Wales from 806 to 761, was due to the inability of the purchasing officers to find sufficient horses of the right quality in Great Britain; and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the existing grant provided by the War Office to improve light-horse breeding in this country is sufficient to enable the proportion of these remounts
purchased in England and Wales to be substantially increased during the next few years?

Mr. HACKING:: The Irish market provides an especially suitable remount of the light draught type; but, consistently with keeping in touch with that market and obtaining the best value for money, it is the policy of the Department to purchase as many as possible of its horses in the United Kingdom. As regards the grant, it is too early to enable any reliable conclusions to be drawn as to its adequacy, but it is hoped that it will prove satisfactory.

SCOTLAND (MILK MARKETING SCHEME).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that many milk producer retailers have been obliged to sell their cows in order to pay the levy under the Scottish milk marketing scheme; and will he urge the committee of inquiry to work with the utmost despatch in order to be able to make recommendations for the amendment of a scheme which is depriving of their livelihood many persons engaged for years past in milk production?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am satisfied that the Reorganisation Commission are fully aware of the urgency of the problems with which they have to deal and have already met representatives of the milk industry with a view to ascertaining the facts of the situation as affecting the Scottish milk marketing scheme. I have, however, drawn the attention of the Commission to the terms of the Noble Lady's question.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Am I to take it that the Reorganisation Commission have met the representatives of the levy producers in Scotland, as it is these producers who have been experiencing the great difficulties to which the question refers?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes. The members of the Reorganisation Commission have paid a visit to Scotland and have met the representatives of the levy producers in that area.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have three questions to put to the Lord President of the Council, and perhaps I had better put them all together. The first is: what is the business for next week; the second, whether the Government will reprint the India Bill, as amended, for the convenience of hon. Members; and the last, when we may expect a statement from the Government as to their intentions in regard to the report on the beet-sugar subsidy?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The business for next week is:

Monday: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.

Tuesday and Wednesday: General discussion of the Budget Resolutions.

Thursday: The House will meet at 11 o'clock; Adjournment for the Easter Recess.

The House will reassemble on Monday, 29th April.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

With regard to a reprint of the Government of India Bill, we will take steps for a reprint to be issued when we have finished the remaining Clauses of the Bill. The reprint should be ready in ample time for hon. Members to take it with them on their holiday. In regard to the beet-sugar subsidy, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in reply to a recent question, the report has only just been received, and, in view of the important issues raised, it would be quite impossible to make a statement now or to undertake to make one at an early date. As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Government have already announced the terms upon which it is proposed to deal with the present year's crop.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the report on the sugar-beet subsidy is in the Vote Office now?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter at an early date?

Mr. BALDWIN: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is referring to sugar-beet—

Sir H. SAMUEL: In regard to the provisions for this year.

Mr. BALDWIN: I really could not say.

Mr. CROSSLEY: On the question of business, may I ask whether on the Adjournment Motion for the Easter Recess a debate will take place on rearmament and foreign affairs?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that question should be directed to Mr. Speaker.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask whether the India Bill will be reprinted before or after the new Clauses have been dealt with?

Mr. BALDWIN: When I said "clauses," I meant the Clauses in the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an announcement will be made fairly soon with regard to the sittings of the House during the week commencing 6th May? Many Members of Parliament are anxious to take part in local celebrations and wish to know to what extent the House may be sitting during that week.

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, I will look into that matter and see that a statement is made as soon as possible.

Mr. BERNAYS: On a point of Order. With regard to the Adjournment Motion on Thursday: It has been suggested that there will be a debate on re-armament. I realise that the conduct of business is entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but the point I wish to raise is this. Will it be possible for hon. Members who desire to raise other and less important questions to catch your eye on that occasion, or is it to be another Parliamentary field day when there will be the usual quota of Privy Councillors' speeches? Further, may I, with the utmost respect, suggest that these Adjournment debates have furnished in the past valuable opportunities to private Members for raising the grievances of their constituents and that there is a danger of that practice being lost. I think I am right in saying that the whole of the Christmas Adjourment debate was monopolised by the very important question of monetary policy. Is it suggested that the Easter Adjournment debate should be monopolised by an equally important subject?

Mr. SPEAKER: On all occasions of Adjournments for holidays it has been my endeavour to satisfy as many Members as possible and to allow as many questions to be raised as time permitted. I propose to do the same on this occasion. If hon. Members will send to me notice of the various subjects which they wish to raise, I shall try to get in as many as I possibly can.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: In view of the statement just made by Mr. Speaker and the great importance of getting an early date for discussing this question of disarmament and of armaments in this country, would not the Government consider giving a whole day immediately after Easter so as to avoid taking up time on the Adjournment Motion with that very large and important question?

Mr. BALDWIN: If my memory serves me, the Prime Minister made a statement on that subject only the other day. It is obvious that the reasonable time for a discussion will be when our representatives return from Stresa and Geneva.

HULL FISHING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).

Mr. RICHARD LAW: On a point of Order. I have given private notice of a question which I am anxious to put to the Minister of Labour. Am I out of order in seeking to put it now?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have had no notice of a question of that kind from the hon. Member.

Mr. LAW: I am very sorry, Sir, but I understood you had received it. I understand that the Minister has had notice and is prepared to answer the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may put the question.

Mr. LAW: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the stoppage in the Hull fishing industry is causing widespread, unemployment and grave distress among fishermen, merchants, and all those whose livelihood depends upon the industry, and whether he is able to take any steps to bring the dispute to an end?

Mr. STANLEY: I have been keeping in close touch with the developments in the dispute to which my hon. Friend refers,
and I have decided to exercise my powers under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act to order a Court of Inquiry. I hope that, in these circumstances, having regard to the very serious effects which the dispute has already had on employment and on the general welfare of the industry, and which will be greatly increased by a continuance of the present deadlock, steps will immediately be taken to enable normal activity to be resumed.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any effort has been made to get the officials of the responsible unions concerned together with a view to negotiating a settlement?

Mr. STANLEY: As I have said, I am in close touch with the developments in the dispute and, in exercising the powers referred to in my answer, I am taking what I believe to be the best course to bring this unfortunate dispute to an end.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1."That, in the case of the Bournemouth Gas and Water [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2."That, in the case of the London Building Act (Amendment) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

FOLKESTONE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

SHARPNESS DOCKS AND-GLOUCESTER AND BIRMINGHAM NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MARLOW WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER. BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to.—

Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [TWENTY-FIRST DAY—Progress, 10th, April.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 448.—(Interpretation.)

The CHAIRMAN: The arrangement which was in operation yesterday applies to all the Amendments on this Clause.

Amendments made: In page 252, line 34, leave out "and debt.'"

In line 35, at the end, insert "'debt' includes any liability in respect of any obligation to repay capital sums by way of annuities, and any liability under any guarantee, and debt charges' shall be construed accordingly."

In line 38, after "made," insert "before the commencement of this Part of this Act."

In page 253, line 5, after the first "pension," insert "in relation to persons in, or formerly in, the service of the Crown in India or Burma."

In line 7, leave out from "of," to "and," in line 8, and insert "any such person."

In line 11, after "interest," insert "thereon or any other addition thereto."

In page 253, leave out line 13.

In line 15, at the end, insert:
securities" include stock;
taxation" includes the imposition of any tax or impost whether general or local or special, and "tax" shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Butler.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 449.—(Commencement.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, in page 254, line 8, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
(3) If it appears to His Majesty in Council that it will not be practicable or convenient that all the provisions of this Act which are under the foregoing provisions of this section to come into force on a date therein mentioned should come into operation simultaneously on that date, His Majesty in Council may, notwithstanding anything in this section, fix an earlier or a later date for the coming into operation, either generally or for particular purposes, of any particular provisions of this Act.
This is largely a drafting Amendment and raises no question which needs any detailed explanation.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The Amendment provides that His Majesty in Council may, notwithstanding anything in this Clause, fix an earlier or a later date for the coming into operation of the Act. Under an earlier Clause it is laid down that before His Majesty in in Council does anything under the Act a draft of the Order has to be submitted to Parliament. Normally, when the date of the coming into operation of an Act is fixed by His Majesty in Council the purely administrative decision is left to the Department concerned. In this case, having regard to the earlier Clause describing the procedure in regard to Orders-in-Council, I want to be certain whether that Clause governs the Clause which we are now considering, with regard to the decision as to bringing the Bill into operation, and whether it will be the case that the draft of the Order will have to be laid before Parliament so that in fact Parliament will decide on what date the different parts of the Bill will come into operation.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member is referring to Clause 286, and it is correct to say that the Order will be laid before Parliament and that Parliament wilt have the decisions on the matter.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask whether this Amendment applies in common to India and Burma?

Mr. BUTLER: That is so.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman will know that the question of the date of the coming into operation of this Bill is very present in the minds of the Indian people. They are very anxious about it and always have been, and I can only express the hope that the Government in taking this power—and I understand why they are seeking to secure this power—will not in any way postpone unnecessarily the date of the coming into operation of the Bill, certainly as far as the Provinces are concerned. I put in that proviso, because I am losing my faith in the other part of the Bill with regard to Federation. Whatever my own views may be about this, I am sure that the
Indian people will be extremely disappointed if there is a long hiatus between the final discussions on the Bill and the coming into operation of its provisions.

3.52 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I. hope that the Government will also bear in mind the grave anxiety in many quarters of the Committee that the Bill should not come into operation until they are absolutely convinced that the financial situation in the Provinces is different from what it is at the present time. Any attempt to hasten the coming into operation of the Bill until this position is cleared up will be contrary to all the pledges we have received, and I hope that the Government will not be lured by the siren voice of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones).

3.53 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Under-Secretary has not quite satisfied my point. In the new Sub-section the words are "His Majesty in Council". In Clause 287 the phrasing is rather different: "His Majesty may by Order-in-Council." I am not certain that it means the same thing when you say, "His Majesty by Order-in-Council" may do something, and "His Majesty in Council" may fix the date. There may be some difference in constitutional practice. There is another point in Clause 286, which the Under-Secretary reminded me was the pertinent Clause. There is an urgent provision in Sub-section (1) under which, when something is done on grounds of 'urgency when Parliament is not sitting, it can be done subject to the Order being confirmed when Parliament meets, but if it is not confirmed it will lapse. When you have brought a section of an Act into co-operation, however, a lot of things will happen, and you cannot reverse things effectively by subsequently cancelling the order through the action of Parliament, if the order had been made when Parliament was not sitting. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the provisions of this Sub-section want a little more careful examination.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May we have an assurance that nothing in this proposed Sub-section will conflict with the inquiry into the finances of the Federation that we understand is to take place, and that nothing will over-ride the provisions as to the number of Princes who have to
signify their adherence before Federation comes into force?

3.55 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: Any assurances given on these points will be adhered to, and there is no intention by this Clause, which is a pure machinery Clause, to go behind any assurance that has been given. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) asked me to assure him that there. was no intention of delaying the operation of this Bill. I can assure him that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government not to delay the inauguration of Provincial Autonomy in any way, and to. hasten on, with a great deal more optimism than he has, with the part of the Bill referring to Federation. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), the words in this Clause definitely bind the Government to bring before the House any Order-in-Council to be considered by the House, and there is no intention of implying anything different by the wording of the Clause. If there be any other implication, I will look into it, but I am advised that it covers the point the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What about the urgency provision?

Mr. BUTLER: It is our intention to put the Order-in-Council before the House when the House is sitting in order that the House may consider it. Without the approval of the House, that part of the Bill cannot come into operation.

3.57 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Amendment is a great improvement in the Bill because it makes it clear that it is possible to institute Provincial Autonomy without waiting for the Central Government. May I, however, put in one further plea to the hon. Gentleman that it should be possible to consider bringing in Provincial Autonomy into certain Provinces, particularly those Provinces that want it, and to delay it for those Provinces that do not want it.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that does not arise on this Clause. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is too late.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It perhaps arises more accurately on the question of the Clause standing part, but we are
talking about starting Provincial Autonomy before Federation is started.

The CHAIRMAN: But autonomy cannot be started on separate dates for certain Provinces.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I agree that that question is not in order on this Amendment.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Can we have an express assurance from the Under-Secretary that the two parts of the Bill stand together and that there is nothing whatever in the Clause that lends colour to the suggestion that has been made, that we may have Provincial Autonomy before Federation is secured?

3.58 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I hope that the Under-Secretary will give a specific answer on this subject, because in the Debates yesterday and again to-day some point has arisen for new consideration. We have been told from the start that the attitude that my hon. Friends and I have adopted, namely, that we should go forward with the great experiment in the Provinces before going forward to Federation, was absolutely impossible, and now we have been told by the Under-Secretary, speaking with all his authority, that he is going to push right ahead with provincial home rule at the earliest possible date.

The CHAIRMAN: I nearly stopped another hon. Member—I do not remember who he was—when he was dealing with this point, but this provision with regard to separate parts of the Bill coming into operation on separate dates is a matter we have disposed of already.

Sir H. CROFT: I appreciate that, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain what he meant when he said that Provincial self-government would be established before Federation?

The CHAIRMAN: It has been settled by the Committee that the commencement of the Provincial portion of the Bill does not depend upon the commencement of the Federation portion of the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than reaffirm the belief of the Government in an All-India Federation, and that it has
been anticipated that provincial autonomy will come into operation before the establishment of Federation. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well the conditions precedent to the coming into operation of an All-India Federation. As we have discussed these matters before, I will confine myself to repeating the belief of the Government in Federation, and the intention to proceed with it as fast as possible.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it will be less irrelevant and less out of order.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"

4.1 p.m

Colonel WEDGEWOOD: Would it be in order now to raise the question as to whether it will be possible or practicable under this Clause for the Government to consult the Legislatures in the Provinces as to whether they want provincial autonomy introduced in their particular Provinces—Whether, in fact, it will be permissible to start at different dates and to discriminate between the Provinces in securing provincial autonomy? It would make an enormous difference to the people of India if they thought they were to be consulted at all on this question. Is it possible for the Assemblies as they now are to have some voice in deciding the date at which this should come in?

The CHAIRMAN: I thin I had better answer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question before he gets any deeper in the mire. I was going to say that I never put any obstacles, if I can help it, in the way of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or any other Member of the Committee completing his education in regard to this Bill, but I think it would be stretching a point to allow an answer to be given to a question which has been previously discussed and decided.

Colonel WEDGEWOOD: I will content myself, then, by asking the hon. Member if he can give any indication as to the possibility of having a separate date for such Provinces as Bengal, Bombay and Madras?

Mr. BUTLER: I think I can reply quite shortly by saying that it has never been
our intention to treat one Province differently from another, or to introduce Provincial autonomy into one Province al; a different date from that in another.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not even if a Province expresses a wish to have a different date?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does one Province differ much from another?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is now trying to do what I said must not be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 450 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 451.—(Repeals.)

4.5 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, in page 254, line 26, after "that," to insert:
"(a)nothing in this section shall affect the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919;
(b).
The Committee will remember that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in the course of his Second Reading speech—in answer to an interruption—that it was the proposal of the Government to make it plain by a suitable Amendment to the Fifteenth Schedule that the Preamble to the Government of India Act was not to be repealed. It would, however, be more appropriate to make the change by adding these words to the last Clause of the Bill as it stands at present, which provides that the Government of India Act shall be repealed. If these words are added, it will prevent that repeal from applying to the provisions of the Preamble.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask the learned Attorney-General a question arising out of the statement he has just made, namely, whether this is the endeavour of the Government to implement what they promised in relation to the retention of the Preamble to the 1919 Act when we had the general question of the status of India before us? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government stood by that Preamble. We take objection to the proposed paragraph (a)as being an inadequate statement of the position, but there is also, as will be
observed, an Amendment in my name when we come to the Postponed Clause 1, which is the next Clause to be discussed. I wonder whether you could tell us whether we could raise the question of the status more properly on the Question that Postponed Clause 1 stand part, or whether you would allow us to have our discussion at this point?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that the hon. Member can raise the point anywhere, or at least not to its full extent. Neither on this Clause nor on Postponed Clause I can there be, I think, any discussion as to what may be the future policy of the Government or the intention of the Government as to any possible future legislation for India. That was a matter which, no doubt, could be debated up to a certain point on the Second Reading of the Bill, but we have got beyond the Second Reading. We have got a definite question before us now as to the Preamble to the Act of 1919, and as to the advisability or otherwise of adopting the Amendment which proposes specifically to continue the existence of that Preamble, but I do not think we can go beyond that.

Mr. JONES: May I submit this point? There is an Amendment in my name to Postponed Clause—in page 1, line 8, to leave out "Government of India," and to insert "Dominion of India Self-Government," and there is also a suggested new Clause on page 1621 of the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—(Act to be regarded as facilitating dominion, status.) Those two proposals, I respectfully submit, deal with the question as to what is to be the ultimate purpose of this Bill. I gather that you rule it is not competent for us to-day to discuss what the ultimate destiny of India may be, but may I submit to you that in discussing the Preamble itself we are doing so? The Preamble itself does, in point of fact, indicate the direction in which the Government wishes to go in respect of the Government of India, and if we therefore take objection to the Preamble on the ground that it does not adequately express the purpose of the Government implementing this Bill, I submit that we are entitled to move our Amendment today. I admit that I cannot very well anticipate what your ruling may be on my right hon. Friend's new Clause, but
it would be a convenience to us to have a discussion on this point, either now or when we come to the Clause of my right hon. Friend, or where I have a Motion down.

Mr. MOLSON: On that point of Order. At the end of the Amendment Paper the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend have put down an Amendment to move a Preamble to this Bill which would deal exactly with the point. With great respect, may I suggest that perhaps that might be a convenient time for a discussion?

Sir H. CROFT: May I suggest that if the question is to be discussed right at the end of the Clauses, it would be very inconvenient?

4.10 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: It may save trouble if I answer the points raised one at a time, and not have to carry them all in my mind until the end. I can dispose of the last one by saying that an Amendment to insert a Preamble when there is no Preamble is out of order.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Can we have some guidance from you, Sir Dennis, as to what our limits of discussion are now?

The CHAIRMAN: That is why I am anxious to answer the questions before they pass out of my mind.

Mr. JONES: I do not wish to be fractious in any way, but I gather that you said where there is no Preamble we cannot provide one. But is it not a fact that this Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State provides a Preamble by adopting the Preamble to the Act of 1919?

The CHAIRMAN: No; I think quite clearly not. What may be the effect of specifically continuing the Preamble to an Act which has been on the Statute Book for some years may be discussed, but as regards the procedure in this Committee this is a Bill to which there is no Preamble, and, in those circumstances, it is contrary to our Rules to insert any Preamble.

Mr. JONES: For my guidance, may I ask you this question? It is vital to us that we should be able to raise this important point, and I would ask you at what point may we raise the issue
challenging the adequacy of this Amendment of the Government adopting the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919?

The CHAIRMAN: On that Amendment quite definitely. It is obvious that on an Amendment which proposes definitely to retain the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919, it is quite in order to discuss that. It is not for me to endeavour to find out what is in the minds of hon. Members, but, as far as I can say at this moment, I should have thought that that particular Amendment would give hon. Members and right hon. Members all the latitude they want. But, perhaps, I may say at once I do not propose to select any of the Amendment on the Order Paper to postpone Clause 1, nor do I propose to select the new Clause in the name of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition—(Act to be regarded as facilitating dominion, status)—I prefer to say I do not select them. I have reasons for not selecting—if I do not select I avoid going into the question as to whether they are in order or not. As a matter of fact, we have had a fairly wide Debate on this particular Amendment within the limit of any Debate which can take place on it, and I have already given a Ruling.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Is it your Ruling, Sir Dennis, that even the Government itself, if it wished to introduce a Preamble, could not now do it?

The CHAIRMAN: No, certainly they could not. I might be wrong in saying as I was going to that the Government can do no more than ordinary Members, because they can do more in certain matters connected with finance, but there is nothing in our procedure which would allow them to insert a Preamble where there is not one in the Bill.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: On that point of Order. The Amendment says:
Nothing in this Section shall affect the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919.
I do not quite understand how that phrase comes in. Will not this Bill really wipe out the Government of India Act?

The CHAIRMAN: Not the Preamble if this Amendment is passed.

Mr. LANSBURY: But can we take the Preamble out of an Act which is to be abrogated and then put it in here in this form? I am not a legal gentleman, but I understand that this is a Preamble which is going to be stuck somewhere into the middle of the Bill. Anyhow, we are told that it is not, a Preamble. [Interruption.] Oh, it is a Preamble. Well, that is the point. There is a subtle distinction which lay people cannot understand. It is a Preamble to another Act which is dead, or will be dead when this Bill is the law. It is all very well to say there is not a Preamble, but where is the justification for saying that? I should like the Attorney-General to tell us whether this has happened before.

4.18 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I made my observations on this Amendment very brief because, to tell the truth, I thought the Government's proposal to insert words making it plain that the Preamble was not repealed with the rest of the Government of India Act, 1919, would meet to some extent—I am not saying it would go the whole way—the wishes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was under the impression, and I think the Committee will be under the same impression, that during the Second Reading Debate some satisfaction was felt at the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in answer to a speech by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The Secretary of State said:
In order to put all doubts at rest, I shall move at the proper time, when we come to the Schedule under which the Government of India Act, 1919, is repealed, an. Amendment to say 'except the Preamble.' It will be quite clear that the Preamble, whether it is susceptible to repeal or not, is not repealed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1935; col. 1181, Vol. 297.]
My recollection is tat, so far as the two Oppositions were concerned, that statement went a considerable way, I will not put it higher than that, to give them satisfaction. Therefore, when it came to a question of implementing that promise of my right hon. Friend—true by putting it into the last Clause of the Bill instead of into the Schedule which deals with the Acts of Parliament that are repealed—if I had thought there was any objection to this proposal I should, of course,
have dealt with the matter rather more fully and in a slightly more controversial form. If it will help the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I will offer some observations on the point he made as to what is the purpose of leaving in the Preamble and the legal effect, as I understand the matter, of the Preamble.
The present Bill was introduced without a Preamble for reasons which I need not discuss. Much anxious consideration was given to the drafting of this Bill, and it naturally occurred both to the Government and to private Members and to other persons interested in the Bill to consider whether it would not be desirable, as the Government of India Act, 1919, had a Preamble, to have a Preamble to this Bill. That question was decided in the negative and the Bill was introduced without a Preamble. Then hon. Members opposite and in other parts of the House took the view that, for what it was worth, the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919, had a certain value as marking the definite intentions of this country and not merely of the Government of the day, and that it would be just as well that no support should be given to the view that by repealing the Government of India Act, 1919, including the Preamble, there had been any desire to go back upon what was the policy of Parliament in 1919. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it abundantly clear that the present Government have no intention whatever of going back upon the Preamble of 1919, that is to say, upon the expressions of intention contained in that Preamble. As the Committee will recollect, there are certain parts of the Preamble which may be said to be exhausted now. They are the parts of the Preamble which refer to the action of Parliament and to the extent to which that action would be guided by co-operation and so forth, but the part to which importance has been attached is the first Clause of it, which says:
Whereas it is the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian administration, and for the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire.
Those opening words are the words which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, in a carefully phrased and prepared statement in the House on the
Second Reading of this Bill, the Government intend to rest their policy on; that is to say, we do not depart one iota from the statements there made, and with a view to marking and emphasising that position, he was prepared to see that the Preamble was not repealed.
The right hon Gentleman opposite asks: "What is the purpose of leaving a, Preamble in the air? You are repealing the whole of the rest of the Government of India Act; what will that un-repealed part of the Preamble do? "The exact value of a Preamble is a matter which lawyers sometimes discuss, but I do not think that anybody has ever said that the Preamble has what lawyers call "an operative effect." It is, at best, a statement of the intentions of Parliament at a particular time, and may possibly be used by the Courts to throw some light on the interpretation of the operative parts of an Act. The value of that Clause in the Preamble which I have read would obviously not be that, as we are going to repeal the whole of the operative parts of the Act, but the value of putting in a rather unusual provision to say that we wish to keep alive the Preamble but to repeal the rest of the Act is, I should have thought, that it shows that some rather unusual importance is attached to a statement made 16 years ago, and that this Parliament still regards that as an accurate statement of the intentions of this great country towards British India, associated as it will be with the Indian States in a Federation. I cannot imagine that hon. and right lion. Gentlemen opposite will vote against this proposal. I think, Sir Dennis, that you have indicated that you would allow a certain liberty of Debate, so that hon Members opposite may indicate—

Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1935.
2. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1935.
3. National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Act, 1935.
4. Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1935.
5. Sea Fisheries (Paglesham) Order Confirmation Act, 1935.
6. Chester Waterworks Act, 1935.
7. Great Western Railway Act, 1935.
8. Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council Act, 1935.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

4.39 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The value of a Preamble is, as I have said, not in stating new law but in containing a declaration either as to the intentions of Parliament or possibly stating a matter of historical fact which it is considered appropriate in all the circumstances to attach to a particular piece of new legislation. The value of this Preamble is that it does express in terms to which the Government to-day still adhere, the intentions or policy of Parliament with regard to "the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire." Speaking for myself I should have thought that this proposal was one which would have met with a warm reception from all parts of the Committee, because although some hon. Members take the view that the pace is rather faster than it ought to be, and though some take the view that the pace is rather slower than it ought to be, I thought everyone was associated with the Government in the desire to help forward the progressive realisation of responsible government by India.
I am not proposing, unless you, Mr. Chairman, allow the discussion to range over a larger field than I anticipate, to discuss Dominion status upon which I detained the House for some time
on the Second Reading of the Bill. I could do no better than repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech on the same occasion, and I certainly could not improve upon the very carefully chosen language which he used to express in unmistakable terms the views of His Majesty's Government in relation to that much discussed phrase. It is sufficient for me to say that I hope the Committee will give their approval to the proposal to keep alive the Preamble, not because it will alter any law or enact any law or keep alive any law, but will remain on record, reaffirmed as it is by this Parliament, as a statement of the intentions of this country towards India, in the hope that we may secure the co-operation of India in the realisation of those hopes.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am very much obliged to the learned Attorney-General for the statement that he has made. Before I proceed to discuss it, I am sure I may say on behalf of all members of the Committee that we are very sorry indeed to hear that the Secretary of State is precluded by illness from being with us. We all appreciate the fact that it is a herculean task he has undertaken in connection with this Bill, and the strain must by now have become almost intolerable; but we are comforted by the fact that we are to have the advantage of the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State and of the Law Officers of the Crown—assistance which has already been given to us in very generous measure. The point which the learned Attorney-General has made still leaves me and my friends very much unconvinced as to the adequacy of what the Government propose through the medium of this Amendment. If hon. Members will look at page 323 of the Bill, in the 15th Schedule they will find a list of the enactments that are repealed, and in that list there is, of course, the Government of India Act, 1919. I may be wrong, but I understand that that statement without any qualification at all means the whole Act, and must necessarily include the Preamble.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is the intention of the Government, as stated by the Secretary of State, to put down an Amendment to say "except the
Preamble." That was and is the intention of the Government.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is already an Amendment on the Paper in the name of myself and others to that effect.

Mr. JONES: Whether that is so or not, the answer of the Attorney-General effectually disposes of that point, and I do not press it any further. The Attorney-General told us, and I think quite rightly, that the only purpose of the Preamble is not for stating any new law, but rather for stating a principle of policy or something akin to it. It is in relation to that that we challenge this proposal. We say that as a statement of policy this is inadequate. It is quite true that the Attorney-General said that in 1919 this Preamble was accepted as an adequate statement of the then position of the Government, but the trouble arises in this way. When we get to the interpretation of this Preamble, we are told by responsible spokesmen that it does not mean what people say it means. For instance, a very distinguished gentleman, who helped us very considerably in our deliberations on the Joint Select Committee, and who was then a high official in India, used words—I have not got them with me at the moment—which effectually disposed of what was deemed to be the legitimate interpretation of this Preamble.
For our part, we should regard this statement in any case as being utterly inadequate as indicating the intentions of this Parliament of 1935 in relation to India. It might have been adequate as a statement of policy in regard to the Parliament of 1919, but this is 1935, and we, therefore, are entitled to challenge this statement of policy, for it can be nothing else, as an adequate presentation of the intentions of this Parliament regarding Indian development. This ground that we are now traversing is one of very considerable importance. No one, I think, on this side, desires to exaggerate it, but I very much doubt if it can be in fact exaggerated so far as Indian opinion is concerned. It is vital, in our judgment, that the Government should not content itself with the statement of the Preamble as it is presented in the Act of 1919. Not only are we entitled on our own account, expressing our own view of this matter, to say that this is inadequate, but I am also entitled to
Argue—and I can adduce overwhelming evidence in support of my case—that repeated declarations have been made, not by unofficial people or, if you like, irresponsible people, but by responsible people, which have carried the interpretation of this Preamble far beyond what it was presumed to be as long ago as 1919. I had better fortify myself with one or two quotations on that point.

4.48 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: While the hon. Member is looking up his quotations, may I make quite clear what I think can be the limits of the Debate on this Amendment? I have already said, I think, that of course it is permissible to consider the meaning of the Preamble to the Act of 1919, that it is permissible to consider and to argue one way or another whether or not it is advisable to keep that Preamble alive, and whether or not it is advisable to keep it alive by this particular method proposed in the Amendment before us. But in so far as that may incidentally raise any question of the policy of the present Parliament, or how it differs from that of the Parliament of 1919, that is a matter which this Committee could not discuss, either on this Amendment, or on any new Clause, or on any other Amendment, or in any form whatever. The Committee must remember what is the position of a Committee on a Bill. The House reads a Bill a Second time and then refers it to a Committee under an order of reference to the Committee, and the Committee has no power whatever except to deal with the Bill as read a Second time, and, within limits which I need not go into now, but which are well known to Members, to make or refrain from making alterations and Amendments in the Bill which are or are not within the scope of the Bill.
But the policy of the Bill as a whole, or the policy of the present Government, the present Parliament, or any other Government or Parliament with regard to the subject matter of the Bill is not a matter which the Committee can go into in any shape or form. Those are matters which can be raised and, as in this case, were raised on Second Reading, and though it is not for me to say, because I have nothing to do with the Third Reading—that is a matter for Mr. Speaker—it is possible that within
limits they could also be raised on Third Reading, but in Committee I am perfectly clear that we can only treat this as an Amendment to be decided one way or the other, whether we shall state that an existing form of words shall be regarded as repealed or not repealed. It is a little difficult to say exactly what can be said and what cannot, but I have tried my best to explain the position of the Committee, and it is hardly a matter on which the Chair has any discretion at all, because the hon. Member will realise from what I have said that the position of a Committee to whom a Bill is referred after Second Reading is very clearly defined and restricted.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether, seeing that the Government have introduced the words in this Amendment
nothing in this Section shall affect the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919,
it is not competent for Members of the Committee to move an Amendment to those words?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, if the Amendment is in order.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have here the Preamble, and I ask you, Sir, whether it would not be in order if we moved our proposed Amendment to Clause 1 in appropriate words to this Preamble, that is to say, to make the Preamble read: Realisation of responsible "—

The CHAIRMAN: No. The right hon. Gentleman has said enough to enable me to answer "no" at once. No Amendment would be in order which endeavoured to alter the wording of the Preamble or to insert as a Preamble some different words.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are we really not being put into a difficult position? I could have understood rather more clearly if we were proposing a Preamble to the present Bill, but, as I understand it, this is an addition to a Clause, and you rule, as I understand it, that we must either accept or reject these words, but that we cannot amend them in any way to make the Preamble read differently.

The CHAIRMAN: That is so.

Mr. LANSBURY: All I can say is that in those circumstances it may suit
the Government very well that this question shall not be brought to a Division in Committee, but I think it is very bad tactics indeed, because, as my hon. Friend is going to argue and has been arguing, it is one of the most important questions that affect public opinion in India and some of us in this country also.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should like—

The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I think this is a matter which I must deal with from the Chair, and I must say that this is a matter which has nothing whatever to do with the Government. It is a matter on which I have to give my Ruling as to what is within the scope of a Committee to whom a Bill has been referred after Second Reading, and I am absolutely bound—I have no doubt whatever about it—to rule that this Committee cannot in any circumstances go outside what is known as the order of reference of the Bill to the Committee. Consequently, the Committee is unable and powerless to vary the order of the House or to go into any question of general policy, which would be more appropriate to the Second Reading or possibly even to the Third Reading. What I am saying now does not in the least degree restrict the right of the House to deal with this matter. What it does is to restrict the Committee from going beyond the reference which has been made to it by the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry to be very dense in the matter, but I did not understand that there was ever any question on the Second Reading of bringing the Preamble to the 1919 Act into this Bill. This is a new proposal which the Government have introduced into the Bill. I know what the Secretary of State said, but the House of Commons did not vote on his statement; it voted on the printed Bill that was before the House for Second Reading. It is true that the Secretary of State said that he would introduce some words to make it plain that the original Preamble stood, but that is not the point, and I do not want to argue it. I want to argue that the action of the Government in bringing forward this Amendment in such a way that the Committee cannot amend it or
do anything with it but accept or reject it, is restricting the rights of both the Committee and the House of Commons, because we know very well that, unless we can deal with it here, it cannot be dealt with on Third Reading. I most strongly protest against the action of the Government in dealing with this matter in this fashion, robbing the Committee and the House of any opportunity of trying effectively to amend it or to deal with it in any other way. I am not challenging your statement, Sir Dennis; I am challenging the action of the Government in dealing with this tremendously important question in such a way as to present it for or against its form of words, without any chance of our being able to deal with it effectively.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that, technically, the right hon. Gentleman, in making that protest against the action of the Government, is doing exactly what: I have ruled cannot be done in the Committee. The Committee has no power to consider the policy of the Government on any such question as whether generally this Bill is a good Bill or a bad Bill. Therefore, the policy of the Government which led to this Bill and what may be its policy in future is outside the power of the Committee to discuss, and, therefore, the conduct of the Government in regard thereto is equally outside the power of the Committee.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I submit to you, Sir, another point of Order? If we accept your Ruling, as we obviously must, may I submit that under that Ruling this Amendment itself is out of order, because it involves a statement of policy. You yourself, Sir, if I may say so without any intention of offence in any way whatever, have ruled, as I understand it, that it is not competent for this Committee, qua Committee, to introduce into the Bill any new statement of policy. The Attorney-General has already said that the purpose of a Preamble is not to alter law but to state a policy, or something of that kind. I submit that in adopting this Preamble he is doing nothing else but introduce a statement of policy. Nothing else appears in the Preamble except that, and I submit that if we are out of order in discussing it in the way we desire the Government are also out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is right. I hope he will follow me if I give the reasons. The Government, by proposing to put in words to the effect that the existing Preamble to the existing Act is not repealed by any general repeal in this Bill, is not thereby putting into this Bill the words which they say they do not repeal. May I put it in another way? If they put in an express provision that the Preamble of the Act of 1919 is not repealed, they are not thereby repeating the Preamble of the Act of 1919. They are simply leaving it on the Statute Book as something which was put on the Statute Book in 1919 and has since remained there.

Mr. JONES: May I put this point to you, Sir? It is quite true that they are not embodying the Preamble of the 1919 Act in this Bill as a Preamble. They are embodying it in this Bill as a statement of principle.

The CHAIRMAN: There may be differences of opinion about that, but I am quite clear about this: A legal question having been raised as to whether a. repeal of the Act itself repeals the Preamble or not, it is within the competence of this Committee to deal with this matter and in repealing the Act of 1919 to say how far and to what extent it intends to repeal the Preamble. The hon. Member will realise that the Government might say, "We will repeal it all except Clause 201 or some other Clause." They can equally say, "We will repeal it except for the Preamble." They cannot repeat the words of that Preamble as a Preamble to this Bill, because as I have already ruled they cannot now put in a Preamble in this Bill. What this Amendment proposes, is merely to state that this Bill does not repeal the Preamble of the 1919 Act. That, I think, the hon. Member will see is quite in order and is a matter to be decided one way or another. But if it is decided to accept this Amendment it is not equivalent to repeating the 1919 Preamble in this Bill.

5.4 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: There is another point of order I would like to submit in this matter. The Attorney-General before he sat down, said it is desirable that the Preamble to the Government of India Act of 1919 should not be repealed, because it interprets
accurately the intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill now before the Committee. I want to ask you for confirmation, so that we may know exactly where we are, whether it will be competent for the Committee to refer to Clauses in the Preamble to the Act of 1919 which in the opinion of the House, or of the Members speaking, do not accurately interpret the intentions of the Government as disclosed in this Bill, and therefore it is not desirable that this part of the other Act should not be repealed.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that would be in order. Whether all the speeches of hon. Members in support of such a contention will be in order I have very serious doubts. I am inclined to think that the hon. Member is thinking that he might perhaps make a speech which I shall certainly rule out of order.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It may be a matter of complete amusement to the Attorney-General, but I want to tell him that this is our only method of really protesting against the policy of the Government in putting Motions down.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to move to report Progress, for this reason. I am sure he does not intend it, but what he means is his reason for moving to report Progress is dissatisfaction with Rulings from the Chair. Definitely, I cannot accept that.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not, if I may say so very respectfully, doing that. I am moving to report Progress because of the Government's tactics. [Interruption.] Use whatever word you like. [An HON. MEMBER: "Strategy!"] Strategy. If I had had legal training, I should probably have thought of it myself. Those of us who feel strongly on this matter are placed in an impossible position. We have what is virtually an Amendment to a Clause brought on by the Government, and we are told by you, Sir, that we cannot amend that in the only manner which would—

The CHAIRMAN: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I have not told him he cannot amend the Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I asked you just now. I read out the words.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot amend the Preamble to the Act of 1919. The right hon. Gentleman used a word that might have been open to represent that what I ruled was that the Committee could not amend the Amendment on the Order Paper. That is not correct.

Mr. LANSBURY: I ask you again, Sir, in order that I may be quite clear. The Amendment reads:
Nothing in this section shall affect the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919.
I wish to move to add words—I do not think I ought to play with words—we want, as I think you are aware, to get a declaration in favour of Dominion status. That Amendment, I understand, cannot be moved on this Amendment of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN: Nor at any stage in this Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: Nor in Committee. The Government have wisely, or unwisely, put us in the position that we are unable to get a decision on that vital question.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must interrupt him. I do not think he wishes to do anything wrong or disrespectful to the House, but what he is now doing is to reflect on the conduct of the House in referring this Bill to this Committee. The whole point of the trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends cannot do in Committee what they now want to do. They have had, up to a certain extent, their opportunity of doing it on Second Reading. They may have an opportunity of doing it on Third Reading, or they can take other Parliamentary opportunities of doing it in the House, but I must make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that what he wants to do is a matter which cannot be done in this Committee. That is not the fault of the Government, or the consequence of anything that the Government have done. It is a result of the fact that we are a Committee sitting under an Order of Reference by the House referring the Bill. We have strictly limited and restricted powers and, therefore, to put it quite plainly, the right hon. Gentleman cannot do what he wants in Committee, and it is no fault of the Government; it is no fault of the Chair, and, if and in so far as he may be making a complaint in
regard to the conduct of the House in the past, the right hon. Gentleman will see that, of course, that question cannot possibly be raised in Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: I really do not understand. I am only an ordinary person, and I do not understand the Ruling. I do not understand how it is possible for the Government to have the right to move an Amendment and the rest of the Committee to have no right to amend that Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry I must interrupt.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think you ought to do so.

The CHAIRMAN: I have definitely stated—I had to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in order to state it—that I have not ruled that the Committee cannot amend the Amendment which is on the Order Paper. What I have ruled is that the Committee cannot amend or alter the existing Preamble to the Act of 1919. The right hon. Gentleman really must not attribute to me rulings which I have not given, and I really think it is time now that we got on with our business, on the definite Ruling which I have given that we must keep within the order of reference of the Bill to the Committee. We must confine ourselves to that.

Mr. LANSBURY: That Ruling is understandable and it rules us out from amending the Amendment. [Interruption.] Well, if the Preamble is not embodied in this Amendment, I must say I do not understand the meaning of words. These words say that if they are carried the Preamble of the 1919 Act remains un-repealed. I maintain, as my hon. Friend stated just now, that when the Bill had a Second Reading the principle embodied in the Preamble to the previous Act was not before the House. It is true that the Secretary of State made a statement, but the House voted, not on our speeches, but on the printed Bill to which it gave a Second Reading. The Government have, introduced a new matter, that new matter being the Preamble to the 1919 Act. I respectfully suggest that in doing so they have thrown the whole question open, not merely for discussion but for Amendment. You, Sir, say that what I am doing, or what I am saying, is disrespectful to the House itself. I, on the contrary, think that I am acting very
respectfully towards the House and this Committee. All of us have the right to argue a question like this. I have known hon. Members argue for an hour or an hour and a half on a question between themselves and the Chair less vital than this question, but we have made our protest. I understand you will not take my Motion to report Progress. I cannot understand that. You have the right to refuse it, and we must accept that Ruling. Again I most emphatically enter my protest against the action of the Government— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] —I will not be shouted down.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, when. I have ruled something definitely out of order, not deliberately to repeat it nor to remain on his feet doing so after I have risen from my seat.

5.16 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will endeavour to keep within the proper limits of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, although there is a great deal that I would like to say in answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He asked me if I thought it was a laughing matter. I was not laughing, but there might have been a less placid expression upon my features. I do not think it is a matter for laughing. There never was an Amendment put down in better faith or in greater desire to meet the critics of the Government than the Amendment which is before us. It entered my mind in the last few minutes to say that, in the circumstances, we would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I am satisfied that that would cause acute disappointment to people outside the House as well as to many hon. Members within the House. The Government would be perfectly prepared to meet such arguments as might have been advanced for the Opposition Amendment to the proposed Amendment, if such an Amendment had been in order. I will say, for the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, if he will believe me, that we think we have very good arguments to advance against the arguments which I understand he would have advanced. It is not necessary for me to defend the Government against allegations of manoeuvring, tactics, strategy or trickery—

Mr. LANSBURY: I never said that —

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: —in order to curb debate by ruling out proper observations upon the policy of the Government. I must not say any more, because I should be going outside your ruling. I still tender the Amendment to the Committee as one put down in absolute good faith and with the desire to go as far as we thought possible to meet the views expressed from the benches opposite, and, as we thought, to conform with wishes, at any rate to some extent, which were expressed by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will it be permissible for me to ask one or two questions? I admit that I am perhaps anticipating, but the questions are relevant to the point at issue. You have indicated that you do not propose to call the proposed new Clause (Act to be regarded as facilitating dominion status) which stands in our name upon the Order Paper. May I submit that it is vital that we should be able in some way to discuss the point contained there in? In the Preamble, which, in the Government's Amendment, we are now asked to adopt, are these words:
Whereas it is the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian administration, and for the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire.
and so on. In our proposed new Clause we give some point to the sentiment expressed in that first paragraph of the Preamble. For the purpose of removing doubts, it is declared that the provisions of that Act are to be regarded as containing the necessary legislative process for facilitating the advance of British India. to full dominion status.
My point is that if we are entitled to posit, through the medium of the Government Amendment, the Government's anticipations respecting India, why are we not equally entitled to restate that in a form acceptable to us? The consequence of your Ruling, I say respectfully, is that we are committed, without any opportunity of challenging it, to the statement as presented to us in the first paragraph of the Preamble; whereas we wish to accept the Preamble but in terms
acceptable to us. I have listened very attentively to what you have had to say, but I say frankly that I am still at a loss to understand why we cannot challenge the Government's Amendment even by moving words such as we shall propose in the new Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The answer to the hon. Member's question is that, as we are now sitting as a Committee under an order referring a Bill which has been read a Second time, what the hon. Gentleman desires is not possible. This discussion has made it clear to me that the new Clause to which he has referred is also out of order, because it would be contrary to the Second Reading. In order to justify and explain that a little more, I may say that the question whether this Bill is or is not in accordance with the Preamble to the Act of 1919 is not a matter which can be discussed in this Committee, because that is a Second Reading matter, and not a matter for the Committee after the Bill has been read a Second time.

Mr. JONES: We cannot carry the matter further with you. We have done our best, and I certainly shall not occupy the attention of the Committee any longer on the point. I merely say, not to you, Sir, but to the Government, that they must not take it, by reason of the fact that we are not able to move an Amendment formally in terms that are acceptable to the Chairman, in any wise whatsoever that the Preamble even approaches what we regard as adequately expressing our intentions in this Parliament of 1935, regarding the Indian people's rights to self-government. With that I leave it.

5.23 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I rise to state, so far as I am personally concerned, that I shall most certainly support the Amendment proposed by the Government. The interesting discussion which we have had precludes me from giving the reasons I should have desired, to state why I could not support what right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition were going to say. I think we are entitled to discuss the actual words of the Preamble to the Act of 1919. That I wish to do in detail.

The CHAIRMAN: Within the limits of the Preamble.

Sir H. CROFT: I will endeavour to confine my remarks almost literally to the words of the Preamble. In the Preamble, it is laid down:
Progress in giving effect to this policy can only be achieved by successive stages.
It is highly desirable that the Committee should be reminded of that vital consideration, which governs all the considerations in the Bill. Some of us feel that we need to be reminded of it every moment. Again:
Whereas the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament, upon whom responsibility lies.
We think that it is vital that those words should govern the situation. Occasionally, phrases have been employed by secretaries of state or by viceroys who are not the governing authority. Nobody can deprive Parliament of the right of taking any decision on any actual departure from the ideals of the past. Thirdly:
Whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service will be conferred.
We regard it as very important that that shall still stand as a guiding principle, because we think it may encourage those who hitherto have shown no sign of cooperation to get some sense of support of the measure in India and confidence in their own sense of responsibility. It is a principle which must ever guide our decisions, I think the Committee will agree, in regard to the Indian Empire. Ever since the governing pledge of Queen Victoria, that has been a sine qua non. There again—I speak for my hon. Friends—we feel that there must be every sign of responsibility before the Bill can be made operative as an Act.
Lastly,
The gradual development…which is compatible with the due discharge by the latter"—
that is the people of India—
of its own responsibilities.
Those words are of great moment, and it is very important that, in the legislation on which we are now engaged, those words should stand. I only desire to say, keeping myself very definitely to the Ruling which you have given, that it would be fatal to the future of the Government of India if we were to endeavour to insert words at this stage outside the Preamble to the Act of 1919. That is the
governing Act under which we are promoting this legislation, and to depart from it would be a vital mistake. I rejoice that His Majesty's Government are keeping to it.

5.28 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that the Government will not persevere in this Amendment, because I think it would make matters worse and not better. The Preamble to the 1919 Act was a statement of fact. It was the opinion of that House—I will not say a better House than now, but a better Government than now—and of the Government of the day. We are merely saying now in the Amendment that in 1919 Parliament felt like this. It has no other effect. We might as well put in an Amendment that in 1861 Mr. Gladstone said so and so. It has no relation to this Act of Parliament whatever. I can understand the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) desiring the Amendment, because it says once more that a long time ago a more liberal parliament thought differently from this one. There is no satisfaction to be got from that, or any rest in India whatsoever.
The Preamble to the Act of 1919 was a valuable statement of the opinion of Great Britain at that time, in regard to India. It laid down the statement of fact that the Act of that date was one stage towards home rule—only one stage—and that it would be followed in subsequent periods by further Acts in the same direction. The reason why there is no Preamble to the Bill is obvious. It would be a contradiction of fact if there were a statement in a Preamble to the Bill saying that the Bill was one stage in the direction either of dominion home rule or of home rule of any sort. The Bill is final. The Government know that it is final, and the draftsmen of the Bill know that it would be a lie to put in a Preamble that this was only one stage further in the association of Indians with responsible rule. The Bill that we are now—

The CHAIRMAN: The possibility of a Preamble to the Bill is a Second Reading matter. It follows with regard to the Bill as a whole that discussion of that point is outside what I have ruled to be in order.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will pass over the question of the impossibility of a Preamble to this Bill, as that is out of order. The question is whether we are doing anything to make good that statement. If we had put in the Amendment that is out of order, would that have made any appreciable difference in the actual facts of the situation? The facts of the situation are that we are taking the final step so far as India is concerned, and, therefore, it is useless to talk about a series. The real difficulty is this: A great many people in India, like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mr. Jayakar, and others, have been clamouring for some statement of policy. Will these people be really disappointed if this does not go in? Will they be in the least affected by the Government Amendment? I say emphatically that they will not. These people accepted Federation, but they found, when the Bill was introduced, that Federation was unpopular in India, and that, if they were to retain their hold upon Indian opinion, they must find some reason for changing their minds. They changed their minds on the absence of a Preamble from this Bill. What really changed their minds was the attitude of the Indian people, and I am certain that it will not make any difference in the Bill, and that it will not make the slightest difference to the opinion of people in India, whether this goes in or not. The howl of rage that went up from the Liberals in India was solely occasioned by the fact that they had to find some excuse, and they found this one. From my point of view, and I must say from the point of view of common sense, what difference does it make if there is or is not a Preamble expressing a pious hope for the future, when what is being done in the Bill is the final stage, which cannot be altered in any circumstances?

5.33 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am certain that I should be out of order if I endeavoured to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and I am not going into the question of altered Indian opinion. All that we know is that the Preamble to the Act of 1919 was a very outstanding part of our legislation. It was the statutory expression of what was, perhaps, the most momentous.
announcement that had ever been made in our history; and I suppose that no part of our legislation had ever been studied more closely, and no words adopted by the House of Commons had ever been considered more carefully, than the words of the announcement in 1917 and the statutory expression of that announcement in 1919. That being so, it was thought that it would be unfortunate that those words should pass out of existing legislation. When the matter was raised on the Floor of the House only a month or two ago, on the Second Reading, the Secretary of State dealt with the criticisms that had been made as to the absence of a Preamble from this Bill and as to the failure to use the words "Dominion status." He then spoke upon Dominion status, and said that he gathered that this Bill was the carrying out of the Declaration of 1917 and the Preamble of 1919, and that, in order to make that quite clear to India and to this country, he would secure the Preamble being continued on these lines. We know very well that in the declaration made by the Viceroy, I think in the year 1921, he then used the words "Dominion status," and said that it was the natural outcome of the Declaration of 1917. The Declaration of 1917 is expressed in the Preamble to the Act of 1919, and, when the Secretary of State made that announcement, which I believe gave much satisfaction in India—the agitation on this point would have been much less—

Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the satisfaction or otherwise that was produced in India? I understood that I was not allowed to do so.

The CHAIRMAN: I was becoming a little doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman was not going beyond the bounds of my Ruling in referring to matters which have taken place since the Preamble of 1919.

Mr. FOOT: I do not want to express any opinion at all on the question of Dominion status, but only to deal with it historically. It was in the course of a discussion in the House on Dominion status that this promise was made by the Secretary of State. I will not dwell upon whatever effect it had in India. When the Secretary of State said that Dominion status in his opinion was the outcome of
the Preamble to the Act of 1919 and the Declaration of 1917, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) drew attention to the fact that the Preamble was, with the rest of the Act, to be cancelled by the present Bill, and it was then that the Secretary of State said that he would take steps to guard against that, and that words would be introduced for that purpose. Whether or not the Preamble goes sufficiently far to meet Indian opinion is not the question before the Committee.
The Amendment is not one that the Government would have wished to introduce, but it was promised in the course of the Second Reading Debate, and, so far from its being anything like strategy, or any attempt to deal unfairly with those who are opposed to the Bill, it is the carrying out of an express promise made at that time. We should have had some ground for complaint if that had not been done—if the Bill had reached the end of its Committee stage and that promise had been left unfulfilled. The Amendment having been introduced, we wish to thank the Government, because it carries out the promise which was then made, and, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen is not here at the moment, I would like in his name to thank the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for bringing forward the Amendment which was asked for at that time.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: I hope it may be worth while for me to offer to the Committee one word of comment on the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and I think I can do so while remaining strictly within the bounds of order. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this Amendment is unnecessary, futile, nugatory, because it does no more than assert that, in a particular year a Parliament which he thinks was more liberal than the present Parliament, was of a particular opinion. I suggest to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The meaning of the Amendment is quite different. It preserves the Preamble to the Act of 1919. It reasserts the Preamble. It asserts, in effect, that the Preamble to the Act of 1919 is still of full force
and validity. What is the Preamble to the Act of 1919? I have it before me. I need not repeat its terms, for they are already familiar to Members of the Committee, but I note with interest that the word "policy" occurs twice in it. The Preamble is a declaration of policy. The effect of this Amendment is to reassert, as the policy of Parliament, the policy which is laid down in the Preamble to the Act of 1919, and it is because we approve, and desire to reapprove, this policy, that we lend our hearty support to the Amendment.

5.41 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I desire to reinforce what has just been said by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that, if this Amendment were put into the Bill, it would simply indicate what the opinion of Parliament was in the year 1919, but that, clearly, is not so. If that statement is reinserted in this Bill, introduced in 1935, it means that it has the approval of the Parliament of 1935.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Amendment does not propose to do anything of the sort. It does not propose to insert the Preamble in this Bill; it leaves it where it is—on the Statute Book.

Sir W. DAVISON: I agree, but it expresses in this Bill approval of the Preamble to the Statute of 1919. I think that that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN: I doubt whether it goes so far as that. All that it says is that it shall stay where it is.

Sir W. DAVISON: Really, we are getting, as the Leader of the Opposition said, into rather a tangle in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] The House is getting rather into a tangle in this matter. If there is any point in the Amendment at all, it must be to keep alive the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I think I am right now, and on stable ground; I have touched terra firma. It is the intention of Parliament, if this Amendment is passed, to keep alive the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I should have thought that, if any body of people desire to keep something alive in their
day and generation, rather than let it expire and die, it means that they have some measure of approval of the thing or substance which they are keeping alive, and, therefore, within the Rules of Order, I lay that opinion, for what it is worth, before the Committee. I do not know whether I am entitled to say—probably I am not—that I regret personally that it has not been found possible for the Preamble to be inserted in this Bill; but, as I cannot proceed on those lines, I hope I am in order in asking the Attorney-General if he will explain, as the Preamble is now being kept alive, how this paragraph in the Preamble is in any way germane to the Bill:
Whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service will be conferred, and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility.
This Preamble is being restored. It has not legislative authority except in the sense in which the learned Attorney-General indicated, that it shows that the Government of the day are still in agreement with what was passed by the Government of 1919. I ask the learned Attorney-General to tell the Committee whether, in his opinion, this Preamble adequately embodies the views of the Government to-day, and whether, in proceeding with this Bill through Parliament, the opinion expressed of the intentions of Parliament in 1919 adequately covers the same intentions of Parliament in 1935?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer that question. It is a question of the policy of the Bill as a whole, which is a matter for Second Reading and has been dealt with; it cannot be dealt with in this Committee.

Sir W. DAVISON: I bow to your ruling, Sir Dennis. It is difficult to discuss the matter, but I think that it would be of interest to the Committee to know why the Preamble of the Act of 1919 is being kept alive by the Bill of 1935. Surely we are entitled to ask whether the Government are keeping this Preamble alive because they consider that what is stated in the Preamble is germane to the facts of to-day?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must realise that if I put it this way,
I am only repeating what I have already said. The Preamble is a statement made 16 years ago. It is not a statement of policy which the present Government make in this Bill, and if and in so far as the question arises of whether it is the policy of this Government at the present time or not, it is a Second or a Third Reading question, and not a Committee question.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I shall certainly support the Government in this Amendment for one reason only. While I look upon the Preamble of the Act of 1919 as the high water-mark of sentimental folly of the last Coalition Government, it will be interesting to future generations to compare the terms of that Preamble with the present Bill, which goes much further.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I welcome the Amendment because I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which, in the circumstances, will not be called and which, I think, actually is rather a better Amendment, for this reason. I was proposing to alter the Title of the Bill and to keep the 1919 Act in being by preserving the Title of it, and the Preamble. If that were done the Preamble would in effect have been the Preamble to this Bill. Therefore it would have gone rather further than the Amendment which we are discussing, because it would have made the Preamble one of intention now, and that, I understand by your ruling, Sir Dennis, is not what we do by this Amendment. What we do by the Amendment is still somewhat dubious. In any event, in the Act of 1919 Parliament made a declaration of policy, and with that declaration in general I agree. It is a declaration that there is no limit to the constitutional advance in India. That is in the Preamble. It is also a declaration that that advance lies with Parliament, with us and our successors, and it is made conditional on the responsibility of the people in India. Therefore, though it is unlimited in one sense, it is conditional, because there are the words:
The extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility.
Whatever we do, we are definitely saying that we are not destroying the declaration made in 1919. It is a great pity that so many statesmen have made so many
declarations with regard to India. They go running round making unnecessary promises which cause a great deal of harm. It is a terrible mistake to excite hopes unnecessarily by all sorts of promises which have not the slightest justification. I often wonder to what extent we are bound by declarations made by Ministers of past Governments. We are bound by contracts, clearly. I do not think that anybody can, in perpetuity, bind his successors by unilateral declaration. We must not break promises or break faith as a nation, but I do not think that statesmen ought to make statements regarded as promises, and certainly you cannot bind posterity indefinitely by unilateral declarations and the careless use of words. The declaration which was made in 1921 of India taking its place among our Dominions clearly did not mean what Dominion status now means, although many people think that it does. It was great carelessness on the part of some of our statesmen.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that those statements have anything to do with the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am doing my best to keep in order, Sir Dennis. At any rate, this Parliament is making no declaration. There is no preamble, no declaration and no promise. All that Parliament is doing is to say that these things under the Bill, if it becomes an Act, shall be done. In that sense we are not binding ourselves for the future, but we are leaving on record the declaration and intention made in 1919. That is the only declaration of intention made by Parliament. Therefore, if we do not put that declaration in the Act we do not destroy it, and, in effect, so far as any declaration and intention are binding, the Preamble of 1919 remains binding, and for that reason I support the Amendment.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I congratulate the Government on the steps they are taking. The absence of words to this effect has caused very serious concern in all parts of India, and I think that by adding these words to the Bill the Government are doing two things. First of all, they are reassuring opinion in India that the Preamble of the 1919 Statute is not a bad one, and secondly, they are putting into this Bill words which describe the principle of development
which therefore becomes part of the Act. I have listened with the greatest difficulty to the long discussion which has preceded the present discussion, and I am very anxious to keep within the terms of order. It would seem to be the case that if the Government or any other person proposed to the Committee the insertion of such words, it would be open to the Committee to consider the Amendment of such words. Personally—I may have misunderstood your Ruling, Sir Dennis—I should have thought that if words were proposed to be inserted in the Bill, that not only could we discuss the meaning of such words but that it would be corn-potent to enlarge them if necessary, but at the moment we are restricted under your Ruling to the insertion of these words.

The CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman—I do not know whether;he understood my meaning or understood the facts—that we are not inserting in this Bill the Preamble to the Act of 1919.

Mr. KNIGHT: With the greatest possible respect, though I do not want to reopen the discussion, which was not followed without difficulty in the Committee, these words in effect incorporate into this Bill the Preamble to the Act of 1919. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will put it this way. These words incorporate into this Bill the principle of development which is set out in the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I hope that I am well within your Ruling, Sir Dennis, in putting it in that way?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is expressing his own opinion, and I certainly will not rule on the question of the correctness or otherwise of the hon. and learned Member's opinion, but I shall confine myself to ruling, whether or not what he says is out of order or not.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am not asking you, Sir Dennis, to give a Ruling on any statement of mine, but I am here to state an opinion, and if that statement of opinion is not within the Rules of Order I am prepared to submit to your Ruling. With great respect, I desire to repeat, in the hope that it is in order, that these words bring within the ambit of this Bill the principle of development
which is set out in the Preamble in the Act of 1919. I put it purposely in that form, and I say that the absence of such words from this Bill caused very great concern not only in India but in this House. This Bill was preceded by a very detailed examination. The 1919 Statute contemplated a revision of the terms of that Statute in the light of the experience of the Statute, and that examination having taken place under the recommendations of the Statutory Committee, this Bill was framed, and the absence from this Bill of any words which gave support to the principle of the Act of 1919 caused great concern. The fact that the proposed words are to be put into the Bill is a matter of very great satisfaction, and it is an additional satisfaction to me and to those outside that, not only are they proposed by the Government but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom I did not expect to accede to this addition to the Bill have stated here to-day that they accept it. Therefore the addition comes with the general approval of the Committee, and I hope it will have the effect of reassuring interests in India that we have not abandoned the principle of the Preamble to the Act of 1919.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. ANNE.SLEY SOMERVILLE: The Amendment appears to be satisfactory: at the same time, the position created by it is most peculiar. We have the whole of the Act repealed except the Preamble. That Preamble is most useful, but the word upon which I should like to dwell is the word "gradual,"
the gradual development of self-governing institutions.
Surely to have that in existence side by side with or at the beginning of the Measure is a contradiction in terms. This Bill does not provide for gradual development, but for a great leap forward. I dare say that I should be out of order if I attempted to develop that idea, but I want to express my satisfaction that this Preamble is left in being as a contradiction to a great part of the Bill now before us.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that the Government have brought forward this Amendment in order to satisfy those who felt that the Bill, without the
Preamble, is unsatisfactory. I wish to say that those of us who were dissatisfied on the score of there being no Preamble showing the object of the Bill, as in the case of the 1919 Act, cannot accept this as satisfactory, because of the fact that higher authorities in India disagreed as to the meaning of the Preamble after Viceroys and the present Prime Minister and others had explained what the Preamble meant. Others have challenged that definition and we desired that there should be a clear statement as to what it meant. We also wanted the Prime Minister's statement and the statements of the late Viceroy and the present Viceroy in regard to Dominion Status to be put in the Preamble. We are prevented by your Ruling to move our Amendment in order to get a decision on that subject. We might, if we thought it wise, vote against this Amendment, but we do not feel that we should like to do that, weak as we think it is, and not understandable as we, think it is, because of the diverse opinions expressed by different authorities as to what it really means. I regret very much, first, that the subject is before us in this manner and, secondly, that the Government have not taken their courage in both hands and definitely declared that the object of this legislation is to bring India ultimately into the British Commonwealth of Nations as an equal partner, with full Dominion Status.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

POSTPONED CLAUSE 1.—(Short Title.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.2 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. May I ask whether you are going to call our Amendment—in page 1, line 8, to leave out "Government of India," and to insert, "Dominion of India Self-Government."?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not propose to call that Amendment.

Mr. JONES: Will it be in order to advance some of the arguments in favour of our Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The position under Clause 1—I may put it shortly this way—is that the only point which can be discussed is whether the Title of the Bill is a misleading one.

Mr. JONES: I will address myself to that point. I should very much regret if it went out to the people of India that the definition of the purpose of this Bill, in the Title, is in any real sense expressive of what we regard as the proper government of India. However, I realise that if I pursue that line I shall be acting contrary to your judgment, Sir Dennis, and therefore, I will not pursue it.

Captain FULLER: The Title of the Bill is "The Government of India Bill." Would it not be possible to put something in the Title about Burma, inasmuch as it applies to the Government of Burma as well?

6.3 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: In the Clause that we are now discussing the word "may" appears and not the word "shall." It seems to me that we might well make the position much stronger if we used the stronger word. When we are laying down the Title of the Bill it is surely better for legal purposes to put in the word "shall." It is riot, however, worth while challenging the Clause on that account.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Legally, "may" and "shall" are interchangeable terms.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thank the hon. Member, but I am not in the habit of having my opinions dictated to me by any lawyer. It would give a stronger line for the Government if we used the stronger word "shall"—a word which the ordinary English-speaking public know and understand. I do not care whether the two words are interchangeable or not. Lots of things are interchangeable in a legal sense. I should prefer the stronger word.

6.4 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): The word "may" is the common form. If we put in the word "shall" it might be that people might think that they would be committing an offence if they used any other form of words. It is permissive, it is a common form and is followed in official
documents. With regard to the insertion of Burma in the Title, I might say that it is intended ultimately to split off the Burma portion of the Bill, because Burma, if and when separation occurs, will have its own Act Therefore, ultimately the Burma part of the Bill will be separated. I hope the Committee will pass the Clause after these explanations.

Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Governor-General may require Governors to discharge certain functions as his agents.)

(1) The Governor-General may direct the Governor of any Province to discharge as his agent, either generally or in any particular case, such functions in and in relation to the tribal areas as may be specified in the direction.

(2) If in any particular case it appears to the Governor-General necessary or convenient so to do, he may direct the Governor of any Province to discharge as his agent such functions in relation to defence, external affairs, or ecclesiastical affairs as may be specified in the direction.

(3) In the discharge of any such functions the Governor shall act in his discretion." —[Mr. Butler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The new Clause is composed of three Sub-sections. The first empowers the
Governor-General to direct the Governor of any Province to discharge, as his agent, such function in the tribal areas as may be specified in the direction. The second Sub-section empowers the Governor-General, if necessary or convenient, to direct the Governor of any Province to discharge, as his agent, such functions in relation to defence, external affairs or ecclesiastical affairs as may be specified in the direction. The third Subsection lays it down that in the discharge of any such functions the Governor shall act in his discretion.
The object in moving the new Clause is to fill up a lacuna or, if we may pass from legal language, a gap in the Bill. The gap arose for this reason, that in Clause powers are given to the Federal Government to delegate certain functions to the Provincial Government for exercise on its behalf but no such similar power was included in the Bill for the Governor-General to delegate
powers to a Governor in certain cases such as are set out in the Sub-sections. The Committee will remember that a certain Amendment was made in Clause 52, which related to the tribal areas. The new Clause will empower the Governor of a Province to act as the agent of the Governor-General in the tribal areas, particularly in the North-West Frontier Provinces, which come under the discretion of the Governor-General. It will also empower the Governor-General, if necessary, to delegate certain functions. For instance, the posting and grant of leave to chaplains in a particular Province is a function which might well be delegated by the Governor-General to the Governor in that Province. In view of the necessity of filling the gap and for the reasons I have stated, I move the new Clause.

6.10 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the term "tribal areas" include excluded or partially excluded areas, or has it a different connotation? Will not this new Clause make it more unlikely that we shall have any one person or any commission dealing with all the tribal areas and the excluded areas in India? As I see it it is a danger, because a single Governor may be given control over excluded or partially excluded areas, and it will be no longer the Province of the Governor-General to have supervision over the whole of these backward areas.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This new Clause indicates the disability that we suffer owing to the fact that we have started the new Clauses before we have had a reprint of the Bill. In a Bill of this magnitude it is very difficult for those of us who are back benchers and cannot engage someone to paste up all the Amendments. I gather from what the Under-Secretary has said that the new Clause is brought forward in consequence of an Amendment that was made to Clause 52 in regard to the tribal areas. Clause 52 specifies the special responsibilities of the Governor. I am not quite clear how the new Clause arises, because in the new Clause we are not dealing with the power of the Governor but with the power of the Governor-General, which he is going to delegate. I am not clear, therefore, how it is that this new Clause is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 52 with regard to the
tribal areas. I am not clear what functions it is that the Governor-General it. delegating. That indicates the disability that we are under, first, because the Bill has not an index, and, secondly, because the Bill has undergone a vast number of changes, not changes of great substance but changes which have altered the phraseology a good deal. I would make this appeal now that we are dealing with the new Clauses, which in turn relate to changes already made in the Bill, that the Minister in charge should give us—I do not say this in any carping spirit but in order that we may know what we are doing—a rather fuller explanation than he gave in connection with this new Clause, otherwise things which are of real substance may go through unnoticed because we do not really appreciate what they mean.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I am rather worried about this Clause for the reason that earlier in connection with the Bill I, along with some of my hon. Friends, had an Amendment down in regard to external affairs. In that Amendment we ask that the Governor should have the right to delegate to the minister dealing with trade—to a minister competent and experienced to deal with trade matters and not one who had simply obtained his knowledge by theory. It was held that the Governor would use his discretion with regard to external affairs. Now in this new Clause the Governor-General is having the right to allocate to the Governor of a Province certain matters, which include external affairs. If I am right, I suggest that external affairs must deal with trade, that is, goods imported into India from this country.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is misunderstanding the new Clause. This is a delegation by the Governor-General, that is, the head of the Federal Government, to the Governor of a Province of certain federal functions of the Governor-General. That is all.

Mr. LEVY: I am much obliged, but may I say that originally the Governor-General had the discretion in regard to external affairs in his own hands, with the assistance of three other administators?

The CHAIRMAN: In that case it has nothing to do with what are the powers of the Governor-General. This is a case
of the Governor-General delegating powers which belong to the. Governor-General to the Governor of a Province.

Mr. LEVY: I want to be right on this question. Does that mean that the Governor of a Province would be able to deal with the external affairs of that Province quite irrespective of the Governor-General, once these powers have been delegated?

The CHAIRMAN: So far as they are passed over to him.

Mr. LEVY: Am I not right in saying that, if the new Clause be passed, the Governor-General has the right to delegate these functions to the Governor of a Province? That being so, the Governor of a Province would use his own discretion with regard to external affairs irrespective of the Governor-General. That seems to contradict an earlier Clause in the Bill, because these particular functions and powers in respect of external affairs were solely with the Governor-General and the three administrators who are to act with him. Now he is to be allowed by this new Clause to pass over to the Governor of a Province, to the various Governors of the Provinces, the function to deal with external affairs. What naturally follows from that? It follows that the Governor of a Province will have the right to deal with tariffs on goods exported from this country to India, and although the tariffs may be called revenue tariffs, they may, in fact, be discriminatory against this country. That is one of the grievances which Lancashire and Yorkshire people who are doing trade with India feel—

The CHAIRMAN: It is not my business to enlighten the hon. Member as to the meaning of the Clause. My business is to point out to the hon. Member that, probably through a misunderstanding, he is arguing something which is out of order on the new Clause. May I call his attention to the exact words of the Clause? Take the words—
The Governor-General may direct the Governor of any Province to discharge as his agent…such functions…as may be specified in the direction.

Mr. LEVY: I am much obliged to you, Sir Dennis. I have not a legal mind and cannot readily interpret legal phraseology. What I feel is that, since my constituency does quite a large trade
with India, I do not want any Clause to be put into this Bill which will worsen the position from a tariff point of view and allow it to become discrimnatory.

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the new Clause.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) reproached me for not giving a sufficient explanation of the new Clause. The only part of his accusation in regard to which I feel at all guilty is that I did not actually read out the literal terms of the Amendment to Clause 52, but in order that there shall be no doubt about this matter I will read out the words which were then inserted. If hon. Members will look at Clause 52 (2) they will find these words:
The Governor of the North West Frontier Province.
These words were left out and the following words inserted:
Any Governor who is discharging any functions as agent for the Governor-General.
The words have the significance which I have described. If the Governor is to act as the agent of the Governor-General this will give the Governor the necessary power. In particular, it is intended to apply to tribal areas, and if hon. Members will turn to Clause 289, they will find a definition of tribal areas. It means the areas along the frontiers of India or in Baluchistan, which are not part of British India, or of Burma, or any Indian State or any foreign State. That is the definition of tribal areas, which under the new Clause come under the direct responsibility of the Governor-General, and we are giving powers under the new Clause to enable the Governor to act as the agent of the Governor-General in matters connected with tribal areas. I gave an instance to the Committee of a case in which it might be necessary to divert functions from the Governor-General to the Governor, in a matter like the arrangements with regard to chaplains, which also come under the control of the Governor-General, and in which it might he wiser on occasions to give to the Governor of a Province the power to act as the agent of the Governor-General. There is no deeper or more sinister
meaning in the new Clause than this, that it is to fill a gap in the Bill equivalent to the powers given to the Federal Government to give directions to a Provincial Government.
In regard to the anxieties of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), let me assure him that this new Clause imports no new significance into the tariff problem. It does not detract from the special responsibility of the Governor-General with regard to tariffs, or from his power to intervene if tariffs are of a discriminatory or penal nature. In certain circumstances it enables the Governor to act as the agent of the Governor-General. If the hon. Member has any further fears let me remind him that in any case in which the Governor has powers delegated to him he will be acting as the agent of the Governor-General and will be under the orders and direction of the Governor-General. There will be no danger about the delegation of these powers. The chain of responsibility will always be the same, that is, the chain of responsibility from this House through the Secretary of State to the Governor-General and then to the Governor. No new questions are imported by the new Clause and, therefore, I hope the Committee will accept the explanation which I have been able to give.

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member, quite naturally, found a difficulty in interpreting this Clause, a difficulty which I share. Do I gather that the words "tribal areas" govern all three Subsections?

Mr. BUTLER: In my first speech I explained each Sub-section. I said that the first related to tribal areas, the second to the powers of delegation to the Governor of functions in relation to defence, external affairs or ecclesiastical affairs. The words "tribal areas" cover the first part, and these other functions which may be diverted to the Governor are provided by the other parts of the new Clause.

Sir H. CROFT: I still cannot understand how far it is contemplated that the Governor-General may delegate such powers. I can quite understand it in the case of tribal areas. Is it limited to these areas? What does "external affairs" mean?

Mr. BUTLER: All we are asking the Committee to do is to give certain agency powers in certain matters, the most important of which are tribal areas. Other small matters may arise in which it may be necessary for the Governor to act as the agent of the Governor-General, and, if it becomes necessary, the Governor-General can ask the Governor to act as his agent and under his orders, so that the responsibility of the Governor-General is in no way altered.

6.28 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I am not yet quite clear on one or two points. For example, under the Clause certain officers are to be known as the agents of the Governor-General, and I take it that in the same way a Governor may still be directed to be the agent of the Governor-General for a small State inside a Province. Take, for example, the Central Provinces. The chief commissioner had control as head of the Province over the small states. This has now more or less been taken over by the Governor-General, which, I think, is really regrettable. At the same time, is it not possible and likely that the Governor-General may want a Governor to take certain action regarding a small State? In what way has he authority to direct the Governor of a Province to intervene in his behalf and to give instructions to a small State, or to interfere in case of trouble arising with which he himself cannot possibly deal?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I have been studying the new Clause very carefully, and I cannot see that this can possibly have any effect on the Indian States. It deals solely with tribal areas, and it does not appear to me that any functions are being conferred or removed by it.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Governor-General has power in certain circumstances to use troops in connection with trouble in an Indian State. That comes within the powers which are not transferred and therefore I submit that the question of the conditions in an Indian State does arise here.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on this Clause. There is a later Clause dealing with the subject on which that question might arise, but it does not arise here.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I only wanted to learn from the Under-Secretary how matters such as I have mentioned, which are bound to arise some time or another, are to be dealt with. If they are not dealt with by this Clause, are they dealt with by some other Clause which satisfies the needs I have indicated?

6.32 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I wish to draw attention to the fact that under Subsection (1) of the Clause the Governor-General may direct the Governor of a Province to discharge as his agent "either generally or in any particular case" certain functions in relation to tribal areas. Thus the Governor-General could, so to speak, get rid of the whole of his responsibilities in regard to tribal areas on the North-West Frontier by instructing the Governor of that Province to act as his agent. On the other hand, Sub-section (2) provides:
If in any particular case it appears to the Governor-General necessary or convenient to do so he may direct the Governor of any Province to discharge as his agent such functions, etc.
It has not been shade clear why it is necessary to have such sweeping powers. That he should be able to hand over to the Governor of a Province the whole of his responsibilities as regards tribal areas seems a large proposition, particularly when it is contrasted with the terms of Sub-section (2), which expressly says that "in any particular case" in which the Governor-General finds it necessary he may ask the Governor of a Province to act as his agent. I only wish to know why it is necessary to have these words in the Clause?

6.34 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I think the object of the Committee in the examination of these Clauses is to investigate all these points. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) asked whether it was possible for a Governor to exercise any function in relation to a State within the borders of a Province. If the Governor-General has authorised the Governor to undertake any duties of that nature, that is a matter which would be governed by paramountcy and the powers under paramountcy would be outside the scope of this Bill. However, it would still be possible for a Governor to act for the Governor-General in the exercise of paramountcy. The hon. Member
for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) appeared to think that the words "generally" and "in any particular case" were somewhat vague.

Sir B. PETO: No, I did not intend to say that. My point is that under Subsection (1) the powers are transferable "either generally or in a particular case," whereas in Sub-section (2) they are apparently only transferable "in any particular case" in which it appears necessary or convenient to the Governor-General.

Mr. BUTLER: I see the hon. Member's point. May I remind him and the Committee once again that in any case in which a Governor is asked to act as agent of the Governor-General the responsibility will remain with the Governor-General? The Governor-General will not be asked to give up his responsiblity. The Governor will be acting as his agent. If the hon. Baronet will turn to Clause 52, the terms of which I have already read to the Committee, he will note that the Governor of the North-West Province is to have a special responsibility. The Clause provides that the discharge of his functions in respect of the tribal areas for which he is agent is not to be prejudiced in certain ways. The Governor of the North-West Frontier Province, therefore, is to have a special responsibility for the tribal areas, and this "generally" applies to any functions which the Governor may have to perform in the particular and vital case of the North-West Province, as agent of the Governor-General. That is why the word "generally" is included in the first Subsection. In the second Sub-section the words "in any particular case" are included because it is not intended that I lie functions of agent should be performed on very many occasions by the Governor for the Governor-General, but that in any particular or exceptional case the Governor-General should ask the Governor to act as his agent.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: In the case, say, of an attack from the air on a State by a foreign Power, would the Governor-General have to act without delegating his responsibilities to the Governor?

6.37 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: There is one other point in regard to which this Clause as it stands does not seem quite satisfactory.
I will give a simple illustration. In 1910 there was a rebellion in one of the States in the Central Provinces. It was necessary to send police from British territory into the State to deal with the rebellion and preserve peace. The same thing may happen again and the Governor-General not being on the spot, the Governor would have to send in police and in doing so he would have to get the sanction of the Minister—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a new Clause in the name of the Secretary of State later on the Paper which appears to deal with the point which the hon. Member is trying to make.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to the custody of public moneys.)

(1) Rules may be made by the Governor-General and by the Governor of a Province for the purpose of securing that all moneys received on account of the revenues of the Federation or of the Province, as the case may be, shall, with such exceptions, if any, as may be specified in the rules, be paid into the public account of the Federation or of the Province, and the rules so made may prescribe, or authorise some person to prescribe, the procedure to be followed in respect of the payment of moneys into the said account, the withdrawal of moneys there from, the custody of moneys therein, and any other matters connected with or ancillary to the matters aforesaid.

(2) In the exercise of his powers under this section the Governor-General or a Governor shall exercise his individual judgment. —[Mr. Butler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In view of the fact that one hon. Member felt that there had not been sufficient explanation of a previous Clause, perhaps I had better begin by reading the terms of the new Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take it that hon. Members prefer to take the Clause as it is printed on the Paper without hearing it read, and in that case let me try to explain the reasons why we wish to introduce it. It relates to the custody of public money, and its object is that all public moneys shall be paid into the revenues of the Federation or Province, as the case may be. This is with a view to regularising the receipts of money and finally allocating those receipts either to the revenues
of the Federation or of the Province. It is desired, in the first place, to prevent any department making money on its own account. For instance, a department might sell land and then appropriate the proceeds of the sale to its own finances, and thereby upset the appropriations that had originally been authenticated for it, or the Public Works department might buy a piece of land and thereby increase the amount of the grants voted for the purposes of that department. Another object of the Clause is to ensure that no Government officer can keep sums of money in his custody. It is provided that he should pay such sums into the treasury of the Province or Federation, as the case may be. In India the treasuries are scattered about, and it is important to ensure that moneys should be paid directly into the treasury of the Province or Federation. In the case of certain departments like the Post Office, it is necessary to make exceptions, and these are provided for by the words
with such exceptions as may be specified in the rules.
This duty was laid upon officers and departments under the existing Government of India Act. That is to say up to now this matter has been governed by Devolution Rule 16, to which statutory sanction is given in the existing Government of India Act. We regard this form of regulating the finances as so important that we think this provision ought to be put into the Statute. We are doing so with a view to creating the financial procedure I have indicated and this Clause implies little more than that we are inserting in this Bill the terms more or less, of the present Devolution Rule 16 under the Government of India Act.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not see the necessity for this new Clause, having regard to Clause 164 by which the Auditor-General in India is authorised to prescribe how the accounts of the Federation shall be kept, and under which he is entitled to give directions in regard both to the methods and the principles of the accounting. Since the Auditor-General in that case only acts with the approval of the Governor-General I should have thought that there was no necessity for this new Clause which appears to be merely an amplification of the same point.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the written record with the cash. Clause 164 only prescribes the way in which the books are to be kept. Broadly speaking, this new Clause prescribes what is to happen to the £ s. d. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for having, partly as a result of my comment on the previous Clause, given a rather fuller explanation on this occasion, though I fear it was not as full as I would have liked. He has not told us what is meant by the words "paid into the public account of the Federation or of the Province." In this country we have what is called the Treasury Chest and when the Treasury do certain things which they are not authorised to do they take the money out of the chest and come to us later to have the matter put right. That to-day is a matter of bookkeeping though I suppose that originally there was an actual Treasury Chest in which cash was kept in the old days. I wish to know whether the public account referred to in the Clause is a physical treasury or a banking account. When I read the Clause first I thought it meant payment into the account of the Federation or Province, kept by whatever banking institution acted for the Federation or the Province. It may mean that a subordinate officer cart collect cash and hand it to a superior officer and that all requirements will be satisfied if he keeps a proper record of it. I am not satisfied, however, that the Clause is well drawn for the purpose of ensuring the satisfactory custody of the cash.
We know that one of the conditions precedent for the safe custody of money and for currency policy in the establishment of the Federation was the establishment of a central bank. I do not know whether ultimately the central bank is going to perform, in relation to the Government of India, those functions which the Bank of England performs in relation to the Government here, in acting as the Government's bankers as distinct from its other functions of controlling monetary policy, the rate of discount and the rest of it. If this Clause is intended to ensure proper banking arrangements on behalf of the Federation or Province, it is not very well drawn. If it is something different, we shall be glad to know why
it is different, because I do not think that as it stands it is tight enough. An ordinary football club has better rules than these, because they do prescribe that the funds shall be kept at such and such a bank. They do not say that the funds are to be paid into the treasurer's account; that might mean the treasurer's own pocket. If the Attorney-General can give me a full explanation of the words "public account," my mind may be set at rest.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any provision for an official audit.

Mr. EMMOTT: Following what was said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), is the expression "the public account" an expression which is used elsewhere in the Bill?

6.47 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: In this case the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is pitting his knowledge against the practice which has been in force in India for a considerable time. I believe that the method of the Government of India's finance is as good as any and it is impossible to improve it at short notice. May I remind the hon. Member of Devolution Rule 16, to which I referred, the substance of which is embodied in the new Clause. The hon. Member suggested that no football club would draft a rule in this manner. If he had studied the Clause a little more closely, he would have seen that it empowers rules to be made. That possibly answers some of the doubts and apprehensions which he has felt on the subject. With regard to the last question that was asked me, I think that the phrase "the public account" will be fully understood when it is realised that it is governed by the later words about the rules. Those rules will prescribe, as now, exactly what is to be done with public moneys, and there will be no misunderstanding in India. All matters relating to the account will be governed by the rule-making power we have already given.

Mr. D. MASON: That will involve an official audit?

Mr. BUTLER: That is covered by previous provisions of the Bill, in Clause 162 and onwards, which deal with ordinary accounts.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I am a little confused because I understand that the moneys are to be paid into a banking account. The procedure in England, I understand, is that when you pay Income Tax to the Inland Revenue, they put it into their account and it is subsequently transferred. In this case, there are moneys to be collected from various sources. They are to be mixed up and paid into a banking account, but what banking account, and in whose name? It will presumably be the account of the Federation, but that seems a very ambiguous term. There may be some hon. Members whose brains function as slowly as mine, and perhaps if the Under-Secretary will explain a little more fully the method of this collection and paying in, it will help us a good deal.

Mr. BUTLER: If I were to start an explanation of the method of the appropriation of moneys in India, I should detain the Committee for a considerable time. I feel that I should say like Sherlock Holmes that I have written a monograph on the question and have taken considerable interest in the subject. It is a case of "virement" in the opposite direction, and I feel sure that the hon. Member can understand that.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of certain restrictions on internal trade.)

(1) No Provincial Legislature or Government shall—

(a) by virtue of the entry in the Provincial Legislative List relating to trade and commerce within the Province, or the entry in that List relating to the production, supply, and distribution of commodities, have power to pass any law or take any executive action prohibiting or restricting the entry into, or export from, the Province of goods of any class or description; or
(b) by virtue of the entry in the said List relating to taxes on the sale of commodities, have power to impose any such tax which differentiates between goods of any class or description by reference to the country or place in which they were produced or manufactured.

(2) Any law passed in contravention of this section shall, to the extent of the contravention, be invalid.—[Mr. Butler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will be fully seized of the importance of this new Clause. It would indeed be a serious situation if we were to allow to develop within India in future serious restrictions of trade and so upset many of the arrangements that have been made in other directions. The Committee will realise that this is a subject which has demanded considerable care and attention on the part of the Government, and the Government have finally drafted this proposed Clause for the purpose of achieving, as far as possible, free trade within India. The object of Paragraph (a) is to stop a provincial legislature, by its power to legislate on items in the provincial legislative list, from checking the distribution of trade in India. Therefore, the Clause draws particular attention to the items in the provincial legislative list which might empower the Province so to legislate as to check the free circulation of trade. These items are in particular No.26—Trade and commerce within the Province; markets and fairs; and so forth—arid 28—Production, supply and distribution of commodities; and so forth. I take these two as typical examples of the attempt which the proposed Clause makes to prevent a provincial legislature legislating in such a way as to stop the free circulation of trade.
Paragraph (b) of the new Clause attempts to meet a wish which has been put to us, especially by the European Association and others interested in this matter. The object of it is to avoid the situation which might arise supposing that some commodity had come in through the Customs and had been dealt with there, and it was then proceeded to be dealt with in the Province to the detriment of the original object which had been achieved by the operation of the Customs. For instance, there might be discrimination as between British and Belgian steel entering a particular Province, and this paragraph has been inserted to prevent any particular Province destroying the original value of
the general Customs policy of the Federation as a whole. Sub-section (2) of the proposed Clause, taken with the rest of the Clause, shows the manner in which it differs from the new Clause suggested by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne)—(Free Trade within, British India). The proposed Clause of the hon. Member is in general terms. It says, for instance, in Sub-section (1):
There shall be Free Trade within British India.
Our Clause achieves the same object, but in a more precise way, and, by including a particular reference to the legislative list, it makes it possible for the courts to interpret our Clause and to make sure that there are no loopholes. It would be difficult for the court to interpret the proposed Clause of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, however; it might be possible to find loopholes in it, and thus it would not achieve the object which the hon. Member and we have in mind. That is the reason why our Clause is framed with reference to the legislative List. It leaves it possible still for the Provinces to take measures, for instance, under items 30 and 39 of the provincial legislative list to deal with such a question as duties of excise on liquor. Item 30 of the provincial legislative list gives power for the regulation of intoxicating liquor, narcotic drugs, and so forth; whereas item 39 gives power to impose duties of Excise. These duties of Excise are vital to the welfare of the Provinces. I believe that in the Province of Madras from three to four crores of revenue accrue by this power of putting duties of Excise on liquor and so forth; and in a Province like the United Provinces two crores accrue to the provincial revenue from this source. It is not thought that by allowing this power to the Provinces it will lead to any contravention of the principle of free trade. In the same way, we must allow the Provincial Governments to legislate on such questions as health, the movement of diseased cattle and so forth, and if our Clause were drawn in a different way with reference to the items on the legislative list this would be impossible, It is to achieve the object of free trade, and not unduly to restrict the Provinces with regard to Excise or health questions that we have drawn our Clause in this manner.

6.59 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I am a little troubled about the drafting of this new Clause. I think that what the Under-Secretary has said about paragraph (a) is right, and that that paragraph probably goes as far as it is possible to go. Paragraph (b), however, seems to me to be very inadequate. It prohibits a province from imposing differential taxation according to the origin of the goods by virtue of power to impose taxes on the sale of commodities. What about the power of a province to impose cesses on the entry of goods into their local area? A local municipality can put a cess of one rate upon goods corning from Bihar and another rate on goods coming from Punjab. I give only that one instance in order not to detain the Committee. I would suggest that we are here exposed to a very grave danger of allowing differential taxation of various kinds which is not a tax on sale.

7.1 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I am in the happy position in this Committee, on the very few occasions when I find it necessary to speak, of being able to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, or the Legal Officers of the Government for having met a point which I have brought before them. I would like on this occasion to say how very grateful I am for the manner in which they have tried to meet a very difficult point. It is, however, my misfortune that I generally have to go on to use the word "but." Here, again, I am afraid I have to say that while they have met the point which I endeavoured to bring before them in the new Clause which appears on the top of page 1625 of the Order Paper—which, I think, has been to some extent met by paragraph (a) of this proposed new Clause—I find myself still in some difficulty, particularly with regard to paragraph (b.) I want to express these difficulties not in any carping spirit, because I know the tremendous difficulties there must have been in dealing with this question of securing that Free Trade shall exist between the different Provinces of India.
May I say here that I do think—and I am sure that every Member of the Committee will agree—that it is essential that we should ensure beyond any possible doubt that trade will be perfectly free
between the various Provinces of India, and that there is no possibility of any Province putting on taxes on goods which are to be imported from another Province. Paragraph (b) of the Clause deals particularly with the prohibiting of any Provincial Legislature or Government from putting on taxes on the sale of commodities in a differential fashion. The first difficulty is that I am not quite clear as to what a tax on sales really is. To what point does that phrase carry us? Is a tax on sales imposed only the first time that the goods are sold, or every time the goods are sold? Goods are often sold more than once. Is the tax to go on every time the goods change hands? Another point which will appear difficult to anybody is this: Is the tax to be collected from the seller or from the buyer? Presumably it is to be from the seller. At what point will the goods change hands? To my mind, all these are difficulties, and I think that the Government will have to consider this paragraph (b) a little further.
I find myself in another difficulty. Under Item 47 of the Seventh Schedule of the Bill it will be found that the Provincial Governments have power to put a tax on the sales of commodities—which I understand to be the point we are dealing with—and also on turnover. It seems clear to me that if the matter is going to be dealt with in this way it will be necessary to include the word "turnover," if indeed anybody can tell me exactly what "turnover" means. I have tried to discover what it means, and I find it described in different ways. Some dictionaries describe it as the volume of goods or commodities sold in a given period; others say that it is the money drawn from a business in a given time. But a tax on turnover is, in effect, a tax on sales. To my mind, there cannot be a tax on turnover which is not a tax on sales. I would like the Attorney-General, if he will, to consider whether there will not have to be one of two alternatives—either to take "turnover" out of Item 47 of the Seventh Schedule or to include it in paragraph (b) of this Clause, so as to prevent Provincial Governments having the power of putting on differential taxes on turnover. I do not know whether it is possible or necessary to define where the locus of a sale takes place.
In pointing out these difficulties, I do not want in any way to detract from what I said at the beginning—that I am very grateful indeed to the Government for endeavouring to meet this difficulty. As long as we can be sure—and I am certain that I am speaking for every Member of the Committee in saying this—that there is no possible impediment to the free exchange of goods between one Province and another in India, we shall achieve what we all want. My only reason for pointing out the difficulties is that as the Clause is drawn at present it seems to me that the matter of turnover, which has not been dealt with, should either be omitted from the Schedule or put in here; and also that the question of sales must be better defined than it has been so far.

7.5 p.m.

Sir WALTER SMILES: I would like to ask the Under-Secretary whether it would not be possible for paragraph (b) to be avoided, because a great many commodities are produced only in one Province in India; and by just taxing that particular commodity it would have exactly the same effect as if paragraph (b) did not exist. I would instance, for example, the fact that manganese is probably produced only in the Central Provinces. Gold, so far as I know, is mined only in Mysore. Jute is a monopoly of Bengal and Assam; and tea is also a monopoly of Assam and Bengal. There are other places certainly in which jute or even tea may be produced, but I just select those places. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he, with his ingenuity, can devise any form of words which would meet this objection?

7.7 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I think that the considerations put forward by the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) are serious considerations, and I would ask the Law Officers to study a good number of our commercial treaties. If hon. Members will carry their minds back to 1921, when a promise was made in this country to put a tax on malting barley by collecting it at the maltsters or the breweries, they will remember that that could not be done because the Board of Trade had to inform the Ministry of Agriculture, which was inquiring into the subject, that under our commercial
treaties we cannot have a differential system of taxation of goods once they have cleared the ports. We are seeking in paragraph (b) to achieve exactly the same thing. I have not with me at the moment the volume containing our commercial treaties, but my recollection is that the words used in those treaties are very clear and definite. Possibly if the Law Officers will have a look at some of our commercial treaties containing this clause against any internal discriminatory taxes, they will get words of a kind more general than the words at present in paragraph (b.) It seems to me very necessary that we should have this paragraph, because I think that India is a party to a great many of the commercial treaties we have with foreign countries; and India as a whole is debarred by treaty from doing the thing we are now preventing the Provinces from doing.
We all know the difficulties that exist from time to time owing to the Constitution of the united States; where it sometimes happens that a State is, strictly speaking, doing something contrary to the treaty obligations of the united States as a whole, and there exists no satisfactory means of coercing the State which is committing this breach of the obligations of the united States as a whole. Here, equally, if this Bill became law and was in operation to-morrow, and any Province was to do the things we are trying to stop them doing they would, in fact, be committing a breach of several commercial treaties which India has with other countries. I strongly urge on those concerned to take serious note of the remarks made by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. It would be most unsatisfactory if we suddenly found India involved in serious disputes, not only with other countries in the Empire but with foreign countries, because the Provinces through their action had committed a breach of international obligations and the. Federation was not in a position to coerce the Provinces for having so acted.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I should like to know whether we are to understand that the position here does not interfere with local municipalities applying what are called cesses—which are referred to in Item No. 48 of the Seventh Schedule? There is a curious custom in India by which large municipalities can charge
what are known locally as octroi duties. The position is that any municipality can interfere with such distributing centres as Delhi, Amritsar and Cawnpore. People do not realise how in these large distributing centres goods are imported from the ports and distributed all over India and Central Asia. The local municipality might easily impose some sort of cess, an arrival cess or a departure cess. Take the case of Delhi, which is a distributing market for raw sugar. Delhi is on one side of the Jumna, and in the Punjab; and across the Jumna are the United Provinces. There are a number of small raw sugar factories on the United Provinces side of the Jumna which find it a great disability in their business that they are not able to sell to the distributing dealers in Delhi. Does this mean completely free trade to all municipalities or will they be permitted to put on cess taxes?

7.14 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Various points have been raised, and I will try to reply to them in the order in which they were put. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) raised the point of cesses. There is an item of this nature in the Provincial List. We certainly will give consideration to that point. My hon. Friend who spoke last also referred to cesses. As the matter stands at present, the question of cesses is in the Provincial List; therefore it is a matter with which the Provincial Legislatures can deal. They can control the powers of municipalities in that behalf. The point raised by my Noble Friend was rather a different one. His point was whether the power to impose cesses could be used for differentiating between goods according to their place of origin or Provinces of origin in India. I understand there are difficulties about dealing with this matter owing to the large variety of customs and cesses in different parts of India, but we are giving consideration to the point raised by the Noble Lord, and if there is any danger of the cesses being used for that purpose, we will use our utmost endeavours to find a form of words to prevent it happening.

Lord E. PERCY: I said that, in order not to delay the Committee, I was giving cesses as only one example. The same
thing applies to a number of other taxes, like taxes on luxuries.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can assure my Noble Friend, as I know he realises, that this is not an easy question. We have done our best, and we still have the matter under review, to pick out those items which could be used to differentiate but which clearly ought not to be used to differentiate, but I think all hon. Members will agree that it would be wrong to prevent a Province from passing what would be perfectly proper legislation, based on considerations of public health, for keeping out diseased animals, pests, liquors and excise laws generally. My Noble Friend has instanced luxuries as a second example, and we will certainly consider the point, but, speaking for the moment without having gone personally into each item with the care with which it has been considered by those who are actually dealing with this matter, it seems to me that luxuries might go beyond the border line. There might be legitimate legislation directed against some particular luxuries which it might be wrong to bring within the Clause.

Lord E. PERCY rose—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can see that my Noble Friend is getting impatient.

Lord E. PERCY: No, I am not in the least impatient, but I think there is a misunderstanding here. I can understand that so far as (a) is concerned, the restriction on entry, the interference with the free flow of goods, there may be difficulties, but I would like the Solicitor-General to give me an instance of any circumstances in which a Province would be justified, as contemplated under (b), in imposing a differential tax according to the origin of the goods. I cannot think of an instance where a Province would need to do that or would be justified in doing it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I say, I have to deal with these matters as they arise, and I think that so far as luxuries are concerned, my Noble Friend could make out a very good case, but (b) says that no Provincial Legislature or Government shall:
by virtue of the entry in the said list relating to taxes on the sale of commodities, have power to impose any such tax which differentiates between goods of any
class or description by reference to the country or place in which they were produced or manufactured.
My Noble Friend's point is that that applies equally to the taxing of luxuries.

Lord E. PERCY: To anything, any tax.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: But you must relate the nature of your prohibition to the kind of taxes to which it would be applicable. There is the case of a tax on income—

Lord E. PERCY: Why cannot you say that nothing in the Legislative List shall be deemed to authorise a Provincial Legislature imposing a tax of this kind?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We will consider that point, but there, again, obviously different considerations may arise. I appreciate the difficulty that my Noble Friend finds, but we thought —subject to further consideration—that by making the tax one on the sale of commodities we had covered the point. However, I will undertake that the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what the Noble Lord has said. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) referred to turnover. I do not think that a tax on turnover will ever be a tax on commodities with reference to their origin, because turnover surely refers to an amount of money—the turnover of a business. My hon. Friend shakes his head

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not know.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think turnover is understood to be a sum of money. The turnover of a business is expressed in pounds, shillings and pence, or in rupees, according to the country with which we are dealing. A tax on turnover is distinguished from a tax on profits by the fact that turnover represents the volume of business done irrespective of whether any profit is made or not. So I do not think there is any danger from that quarter; but we will look into the point.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for promising to look into the point, but I still do not see the difference between turnover and sales.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That particular application of the principle of this new Clause to turnover is one of the matters which is still under consideration. I do not know whether I followed the point which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but I see that he has again disappeared, and as he is apparently not very interested in getting an answer I will not weary the Committee by trying to answer a question which I do not understand.

7.23 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not rise with a view to opposing this Clause, though I cannot understand why the Solicitor-General was unable to give a clear answer to the Noble Lord with reference to all types of commodities entering a Province. I do not think the Noble Lord was at all pleased to hear of the possible exception of luxuries. I could not personally see what that had to do with the case. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) rejoices that the Government have gone some way to meet his new Clause, I confess that I think he may be a little over-happy in imagining that it is going to solve the fiscal difficulties of India, and I would utter this word of warning. Everybody must be delighted to see that the Government are anxious to promote the freest interchange of commodities over as large an area in India as possible. I only hope that means that when we reach a Clause to which we shall come a little later they will have the same anxiety and determination to promote Free Trade or at least reciprocal trade, between this country and India, since they have learned the advantages of a Free Trade area within the Imperial system. I know that I shall have the support of the three faithful Members of the Liberal party for that Clause a little later.
I only desire to emphasise the desirability, since this principle is accepted, of doing everything we can to extend the free area, and I would point out to the Government that in every other federation the abolition of Customs has been almost a basic fact. Here, as I gather, unless some special arrangements can be made, we are to have one-third of the great area of India still protruding itself within this Free Trade area, and so we
welcome the spirit of the Government, and hope they will progress in their task; but I must remind them that this Free Trade area is to be obstructed by all the hundreds of islands which will exist in the midst of that system.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: By paragraph (a) Free Trade is established in India, and it will not be possible for any Provincial Legislature to prohibit the entry of any commodity; but suppose that a Provincial Legislature finds that a particular commodity is injurious to the people of the Province, will there be any power in the Bill to enable that Legislature to prevent the entry of that commodity I Take opium, for instance.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They must not base place exclusion upon the entries mentioned in the Amendment, but they can base place exclusion on other entries in the Provincial List, and narcotic drugs are mentioned in Entry 30.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In such a case a Provincial Legislature would have the power to prohibit.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.

7.27 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am glad to say that this is a case in which I find myself in entire agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), which has not always been the case, I am sorry to say, in connection with this Bill. I am most anxious to have the widest possible free area. There is one last point I wish to put before His Majesty's Government. I do not wish to suggest the advantages of a Clause which I have put on the Paper, but there is in that Clause the statement:
There shall be Free Trade within British India,
and I ask the Government to consider whether it would not be possible to include in their own Clause a definite statement of principle of that character. It would not be a new thing. A statement referring to Free Trade within the area of a Federation exists in other parts of the British Empire. I speak without having had an opportunity of reference, but I believe it exists in Canada, South Africa and in Australia. However we may afterwards define the application of it in connection with the Seventh
Schedule, I suggest that it would be a great advantage to have a clear and definite statement of Parliament's intention that there shall be Free Trade within British India.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: I respectfully suggest to the Committee that the answer given by the Solicitor-General to the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) did not cover the whole case raised by the Noble Lord. I listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Member said, and what seemed to me to be very clear was this, that he showed that it may be necessary to leave the Provinces power to prohibit the entry of classes of goods, but what he failed to show the Committee, and what it seemed to me he was really uncertain of himself, was that it is necessary to leave the Provinces power to impose taxation which is differential by reference to country or place of origin of goods. The two considerations are quite different, and I ask the Government, if they will not consider seriously the suggestion made by the Noble Lord, whether they will not consider making paragraph (b)read in some such way as this: "By virtue of any entry in the said List have power to impose any tax," and so on.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: As the learned Solicitor-General is going to look into this matter again I will suggest one further point. That is the definition of the word "cess." The kind of duty that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir W. Simles) referred to were the octroi, later turned into the terminal taxes. Terminal taxes are covered under Clause 135, and they may, except during the interim period, only be levied and collected by the Federation. That is a very good safeguard against what has happened in the past. I ask the learned Attorney-General to consider exactly what is the difference between a cess on the entry of goods into a local area, a tax which may be imposed by a Provincial Government, and the terminal tax, probably for the benefit of a municipality, which may be. imposed only by the Federation even if the proceeds subsequently are to be paid over to the Province for such purposes as may be laid down. One of the difficulties we have had in these discussions is that none
of us knows what exactly the word "cess" means.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I apologise to the learned Solicitor-General for not having been present when he replied to my question, but, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said on a famous occasion, I was "reinforcing the Revenue." In all seriousness I believe that the words in our commercial treaties do make it clear that you cannot have an internal discriminating excise tax, and that is what we are trying to achieve in paragraph (b) of this Clause. As it stands it is too narrowly drawn. It does not matter, if we only get the right words here, what Clause 135 says about terminal taxes and assessing. If we get the right words in this Clause it will be clear that no kind of internal discriminating tax may be imposed. There are commercial treaties which have been in existence for hundreds of years under which this country cannot do what we say the Indians shall not do. The words which have proved satisfactory in those Treaties, which have existed ever since the day that Cromwell signed them, ought to be good enough for the purposes of this Bill.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Ruler of State may exclude application of provisions as to water supply.)

The provisions contained in Part VI of this Act with respect to interference with water supplies shall not apply in relation to any Federated State the Ruler whereof has declared in his Instrument of Accession that those provisions are not to apply in relation to his State.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.20 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is to give the States on accession the right to contract out of the provisions contained in Clauses 129, 130 and 131 of the Bill. It is very improbable that any State will desire to contract out, as the alternative would be to bring into play the paramountcy control in so far as control might be necessary. This is one of the cases where the Federation will derive specific authority from a
specific section of the Act. On the general scheme it would not be possible for a State to make conditions as to the application of the particular Clauses unless there is specific provision contained in such a Clause as I now propose.

7.22 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I would be grateful if the learned Attorney-General would deal with the matter a little more explicitly. This Clause is quite clearly of a very far-reaching character, but the Attorney-General's remarks did not occupy more than two minutes, and 1 confess that I do not so far appreciate the full significance of the Clause. I very much doubt whether other Members of the Committee present do so either. The Attorney-General said that the Clause enabled the Ruler of any State on his accession to contract out of Clauses 129, 130 and 131 of the Bill. But is it not a fact that those Clauses were designed to prevent one State, and I think also one Province, from stealing the water on which another State or another Province is dependent Is not that the general effect of these Clauses? If so, may I ask how it would be legitimate for any Ruler on accession to contract himself out of obligations of that sort and put himself in a privileged position

Sir A. KNOX: There is a question I would ask. Take the case of Kashmir. I understand that Kashmir has rather commanding interests in the water supply of the Punjab. Suppose it contracts out as regards irrigation, would that not put the irrigation of the Punjab in rather a difficult position?

7.24 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry my Noble Friend thought my explanation was inadequate. Perhaps I gave my Noble Friend, who I thought knew the Bill from A to Z, credit for a little keener recollection of the particular provisions to which I referred. As he points out, Clauses 129, 130 and 131 deal with cases in connection with complaints as to interference with water supply. If it was not for those provisions, and if any State coming into tale Federation were not to come within the provision, the matters in question would he dealt with under paramountcy powers. I do not know whether that sufficiently answers my Noble Friend. The method proposed in the Bill of dealing with water rights is
one of the smaller of the important matters of which they complained in the communications that are embodied in the White Paper. It was pointed out then that it was quite impossible to allow each State to make its own contracts. They must make such exceptions as they wanted for the purpose of coming into the Federation which were within the powers to be given by the Bill, but they could not be allowed to make an independent bargain except on cardinal points that were specifically provided for in special sections of the Bill. This Clause is to add to those one or two cases in which they may, as it were, make their own bargains. If they adopt the very unlikely course of contracting out of the water sections of the Bill they will, as I have said, come under the paramountcy powers, which are at present used to deal with questions of wrongful extraction of water.

7.26 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I thank my right hon. Friend for that explanation. Do I correctly understand it to be this: The effect of the new Clause will be to enable any acceding State to go back as it were to the present position, where these methods are dealt with under paramountcy? It is a very important matter, because we know quite well that the Rulers of the States have raised the question of paramountcy as one of the outstanding matters that have to be settled in this general settlement. As I understand the Attorney-General now, this new Clause will in fact increase or maintain the undefined power of paramountcy where, if this Clause had not been moved, it would have been restricted by the Bill. This is really in that sense going against what the Princes have asked when they have raised the point that the whole question of the undefined powers of paramountcy should not be left unsettled. I would ask whether this is the specific form in which the Princes have asked that this matter should be dealt with.

7.28 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I am very glad that this point has been raised. This Clause has apparently been put in to try to help the Princes over some of their hurdles and objections. After all, if you are making a Bill for India it is not the Princes you should think of so much as the people of India.
Take the case of the Punjab, with its five large areas and its irrigation of 900 square miles, the biggest irrigation area in the world. On this water supply the people depend for their lives. The Attorney-General said that the Prince of Kashmir would be very unlikely to alter the course of those five great rivers on which the lives of the people depend. But it might happen if you give him the power. Any Prince who wants the Instrument of Instructions as full as possible will ask for all the powers that he can get. You give power here to interfere with these great irrigation schemes, and I do not think it is justified, unless you have some further control over the Princes than is apparent in the Bill. This is a far more important point than a great many others that have been brought up.

7.29 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I would like to endorse very strongly what has just been said by my hon. and gallant Friend as to the importance of this matter. The learned Attorney-General referred to it as a. small matter, but I do not regard it as that at, all.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Noble Lady is wrong. I did not refer to the question of water as a small matter at all. I referred to this matter as one of the less important matters raised by the Princes in the White Paper.

Duchess of ATHOLL: With all respect, then, I say that the other matters they raised must be very big ones indeed. Any possibility of interference with the water supply of the people of India, where one acre in every eight would produce nothing without irrigation, is obviously something that greatly affects the welfare of large masses of the people, and particularly the poorest. There must have been some reason for putting the States originally into the Bill in Clauses 129 to 131, providing a machinery not only between Provinces but between federated States, for settling disputes in connection with water. Now the Princes,:or some of them, have objected to being subject to this machinery and have asked for power to contract out, and that seems to me to be a very serious matter. Presumably, the Government must have felt it necessary to have some machinery, or it would not have put
those Clauses into the Bill, and if that machinery is desirable for settling disputes between Province and Province, it is obviously desirable to have machinery for settling disputes between Province and Federated State. Now, because the Princes, or some of them, have objected, it is proposed that they should be able to contract out, and that seems to me to leave the whole of the machinery for settling disputes hanging in the air.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) mentioned the very dominating position in which the State of Kashmir stands in regard to water supplies. Already there has been a dispute between the two Provinces of the Punjab and Bombay in regard to water emanating largely from that State of Kashmir, and I understand that the Punjab, although anxious for more water for irrigation purposes, has been obliged to concede the point that it will not take any more until it sees how much water is required for the Sukkur barrage in Sind. Both those provinces are really dominated in this matter by Kashmir, and yet under this Clause Kashmir will be able to contract out. If it is supposed to be desirable to have machinery for settling disputes between Province and Province and between Province and State, why allow this power to contract out? A very serious position might arise. The welfare of India depends very largely on irrigation. That very figure that I have already given to the Committee of one acre in every eight acres depending on irrigation schemes speaks for itself, and it seems to me that the Government is failing in its duty of endeavouring to secure that there shall be a fair distribution of water between Province and Province and State and Province if it allows Federated States to contract out of this Bill in this respect.

Mr. McKIE: Is the Noble Lady suggesting that the Princes will not develop the water supplies in the interests of the people of India?

Duchess of ATHOLL: No, but if it is difficult to settle the claims of the Punjab and Sind respectively and this machinery is felt to be necessary for them, is it not also possible that there may he disputes between Provinces and States, and do we not want to see fair play all round? If, because some Princes do not like this machinery and therefore the Government. is prepared to let them contract out of
the Bill, I feel that the wishes of the Princes are being met to what may be the very serious detriment of the welfare of the inhabitants of British India.

Viscount WOLMER: At the request of which State is this Amendment being made?

7.48 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) is very hard to please. It might 'be argued that water is so important that it would be unsafe to deal with it at all in this Bill and that powers ought to be maintained of the same character as those exercised by the Government of India in the matter. Nobody needs to be convinced about the importance of water, on which the Noble Lady thought it necessary to dwell just now. Clauses 129 to 131 were inserted in the Bill as it was thought they were very much in the interests of the States, while preserving the over-riding power of the Governor-General in certain circumstances and yet providing for the settlement of disputes where, as the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) pointed out, there might be an undesirable use of water rights, but the Princes—and this answers the last question put by the Noble Lord—in the Memorandum of the 27th February to the Viceroy, which is printed in the White Paper, rather objected to the machinery of Clause 130, because it allowed reference to an ad hoc tribunal of complaints made by a Ruler, as being somehow or other against their interests.
In order to meet that point, we allow them to put themselves in the same position as an unfederated State; that is to say, they would come under the same powers as those which I thought it was agreed on all hands have been used in the best way for safeguarding the water rights of the mass of the people. It is quite an unfounded suggestion that this Clause has been devised merely to please the Princes, to the great danger of the preservation of the water rights of the people of India. As I have already explained, this Clause will put the States in the same position as an unfederated State and in that case the whole of the existing powers, which everyone admits have been used to make the very best of the water rights of India, will be available.

Dr. ADDISON: Why put this Clause in?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have not seen the right hon. Gentleman here before, and I think he has perhaps come into the Chamber in the middle of this discussion.

Dr. ADDISON: I have heard every word of the Debate, and I repeat: Why put this Clause in? What is the advantage of the Clause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: When the right hon. Gentleman says, "Why have you put this Clause in?" the answer will be found in the comments of the Secretary of State to be found on page 39 of the White Paper, in the Memorandum, with which I assume the Noble Lady and my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have all become acquainted, where it is pointed out that in order to meet criticism on the point in a way which would do no harm to any rights, it would be possible
to make provision in the Bill whereby a State could on accession agree or not to come within the scope of these Clauses.
If we cannot be allowed to make provisions which will do no harm but which will facilitate the adhesion of the Princes or of anyone else to this scheme, I do not know what the Government may do. We require to preserve intact the water rights of India for the benefit of the people of India, and whether it is done under paramountcy or under the provisions in the Bill, which the Noble Lady now believes to be of first-rate value, the water rights will be preserved and looked after in precisely the same way.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No one has a greater respect for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General than I have, but on this occasion he has not impressed me. He says that certain people do not want to surrender their water rights, and that if they have to, they will not enter the Federation, and so you provide for them to contract out. It is almost like the famous Trade Union Bill of 1927, under which the unions could contract in or contract out. You have only to go on long enough with this Bill, and provide more and more contracting-out provisions, until you have an entirely sham Federation, under which all
the Princes who come in can contract out of all that is essential, and when you have them all in this sham Federation, you will say that the right date has come, you will present addresses to His Majesty, and you will issue an Order in Council setting up what will be a sham Federation.
Surely the Attorney-General,, to use vulgar parlance, is giving the whole show away. It is quite obvious what is the reason for this. There are certain people who, if you want to persuade them to join this device, will only join if they know that they can contract out of any part of it which they regard as undesirable from their point of view. The Government, realising all the terrible shocks which the Bill has already suffered, puts in this Clause in the hope of saving something from the wreck. I hope we shall have a better explanation of this Clause than we have yet had. The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), who has not taken a very active part in the debates on this Bill, contributed a very valuable interruption when he said he wanted to know why the Government was putting in this Clause. I too should like to know why. The delightful speech of my right hon. and learned Friend did not answer that simple question. Why do you want the Clause in?

7.59 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I suppose, from the introduction of this Clause, that it is put in to please someone, but one wants to know why they are going to be pleased, and I think the Committee is entitled to know that. If some people wish to be exempted from certain provisions of this Bill, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they have some reason for wishing that, and I think we should know what the reason is. It must be a reason connected with the supplies of water, a reason connected with their control or lack of control over the supplies of water. There is surely in the background a real reason, and all I suggest, with the greatest possible respect to the Attorney-General, is that we are entitled to know what it is. Before we vote for this Clause, we really must ask him to enlighten us as to the real reasons for inserting this Clause in the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that the learned Attorney-General appreciates the cause of the anxieties which
I and my hon. Friends have expressed in regard to this Clause and the matter is not nearly as simple as he is trying to make out. He thinks that he has got use on the horns of a beautifully neat dilemma when he says, (1) we disapprove of the Bill, and (2) when he alters some part of the Bill we again disapprove, and, therefore, we are inconsistent. The matter is not so easy to solve. What we are concerned about is trying to prevent the erection of a constitution which cannot possibly work, or which cannot possibly work justly. I think that the point raised by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) just now is a very pertinent one. He asked what is the cause of this Clause. The cause is obvious; it is diplomatic. It is characteristic of the smooth and easy way in which the Secretary of State brushes aside the difficulty of the moment by making some concession, some change of front, without in the least considering the sort of problem which he will bequeath to his successors and future Viceroys in administering this precious Act. This is the situation which is bound to arise under a Clause such as this. Here you are attempting to erect a great Federation, and to combine two principles of Provincial autonomy, and State autonomy and Central unity. We are told repeatedly from the Government Benches that their primary object is to make a tremendous contribution towards the unity of India.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord must not deliver a Second Reading speech on this Clause.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not propose to deliver a Second Reading speech. I have no desire to, and I know that you would not let me. But that short preface, which had terminated, was merely designed to show that the subject of water is absolutely typical. Water is typical of the needs of unity in India. The object of Clauses 129, 130 and 131 was to devise some machinery by which the conflicting interests of States and Provinces in regard to water could be adjusted within the limits of the Constitution. The Government now, in order to get over the difficulty raised by certain States—I notice that the Attorney-General did not tell us which States they were, but I think that we are entitled to know, because it is a very pertinent
point—propose to allow certain States to contract out of this great machinery, which, I submit, is an integral and necessary part of their whole scheme for the unification of India, because water is fundamental to the whole problem of the unification of India.
What is the situation which will arise then? You will have the ruler of a State, a State that is a member of the Federation which has its representation in the Central Assembly of India, which takes part in all legislation which concerns India as a whole, but when you get to water problems that State stands aside when any Province or any other State alleges that that particular State is behaving unfairly in regard to water. The Attorney-General says that there will be no deadlock; the Viceroy will deal with the matter under his power of paramountcy. But that means that you are substituting diplomatic action—that is what it conies to—for Constitutional action. The only rulers who will make this a condition of their accession are those who are not prepared to submit these questions of water rights to an independent and impartial tribunal. They are States which apparently desire to have recourse to diplomatic machinery as opposed to constitutional machinery, which means a, desire to drive a bargain every time in regard to their water rights. That is absolutely inconsistent with a federation which is attempting to deal with India as one unit. It means that you are departing from constitutional machinery. You get back on to the back stairs, and the State which has this particular and unique power of being able to drive its own bargain every time in what is to be done with regard to water, irrespective of the merits of the case, is in a very privileged position.
It is not at all fair to the Provinces or to the States which have come in. What will be the position vis a vis other States which 'have already acceded? Supposing one State has acceded and has not made this reservation? That State will be subject to the machinery erected by Clauses 129–133. Its next door neighbour comes in at a later date and makes this reservation, so that the one State will have to submit all allegations against it to arbitration, whereas the newly acceded State will be free to drive its own bargain. I cannot conceive that machinery of that kind can work
smoothly. It will lead to all sorts of intrigues. The agreed parties will also have recourse to diplomatic action. Pressure will be brought to bear on the Viceroy, who will be in the position of having to act as the honest broker between the two contending parties. That position seems to be a very unfortunate one, and it will be a difficult one to maintain with dignity. It is certainly incompatible with the dignity of the Viceroy's position. Either have a, Federation or do not have a Federation. If you are going to have a Federation, make it universal and make your machinery applicable to everyone. But directly you start making these exceptions on a vital matter of this sort, you are undermining the whole basis on which your constitutional machinery is going to be erected.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I had not the advantage of hearing the whole of the Attorney-General's speech at the commencement of this Debate, although I did hear most of it, and I confess that I am astonished that the Government should have put forward a proposal such as this, because in order to justify a departure from what is contained in Clauses 129–132 there must be an adequate case presented. Is it a fact or is it not that any State that has federated can possibly be prejudiced as to its water rights under Clause 129–132? What have we done in these Clauses? The first of them, 129, says that if the Government of any Governor's Province or the Ruler of any Federated State feels that his rights are in any way prejudicially affected over a very wide field, either by executive action or by legislation taken or passed —that is a very wide field—he is entitled to appeal to a Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in this case is the Commission. The Commission is to be set up and then if the appeal has been made successfully to the Commission and the Commission report to the Governor-General, the Governor-General is amply armed, I submit, under Subsection (7) to protect thoroughly any State that has federated, because Subsection (7) says:
The functions of the Governor-General under this Section shall be exercised by him in his discretion.
So that he is absolute arbiter if the case has been proven that a Federated State
is prejudicially affected. So to justify any claim that any State should be able to contract out requires very ample argument indeed—much more ample than anything I have heard to-night.
May I put this point further to amplify the point made by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)? If we are going to federate the States and British India, let us be sure we federate them in the essential things. Here in these Clauses 129–132 we federate them as to an essential commodity, namely, water. Let me visualise how this thing will work if this new Clause is passed. Let us suppose that a Federated State is contiguous to the area of British India. In the British India district there may be some great manufacturing concern which may require an ample supply of water. The State next door is a Federated State, but as a condition of its federation it has been allowed to reserve control over its water rights, and it might mean that in the exercise of its undisputed control of its water rights, it having contracted out, it would ruin the success of this manufacturing concern which happened to depend for its water supplies on water from the area of the State.
It is a most dangerous proceeding, and I submit to the learned Attorney-General that we really must get a much more ample defence than we have had hitherto. It is a very risky thing to begin to allow States, having federated, to contract out for this, that or the other thing. because if you once begin on that very dangerous road you have started on the dangerous road of destroying the very thing which is vital to this scheme of federation. I may have my own views as to the effectiveness of the Federation proposed, but if you are going to allow States, having federated, to remain on condition that they reserve to themselves complete control over water rights, which are so fundamental in many places, you are taking a very dangerous step in regard to the success or failure of federation.

8.15 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Let me try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman opposite has proceeded on a misapprehension of the position of the States which will come into the Federation with regard to their water rights. He has
more than once referred to the necessity of the States to surrender their water rights. Let me remind him that there is no question of the States surrendering their water rights, because water rights are a provincial subject. If the hon. Member will turn to item 18 of the provincial list he will find that that is so.

Mr. JONES: Surely they are provincial subjects so far as the Provinces are concerned, but where the States are concerned they cannot be provincial.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They are not Federal subjects, and the States coming into the Federation would not surrender their water rights. If the hon. Gentleman has any criticism or denial to make of the statement which I am making I will give way, but I think he must agree that I am right. Clauses 129 to 132 were put into the Bill in those circumstances. The Noble Lord has painted with his vivid imagination a picture of disaster if a State were allowed to do something with its water which would prejudice a large manufacturer or a neighbouring community. Nobody pretends that, up to the present time, the power being exercised under paramountcy has not been directed not only to preserve and maintain but to improve and conserve the water rights which exist in India for the benefit of everybody. Clauses 129 to 132 were put into the Bill for the purpose, I think I may truly say, of helping the States which would come into the Federation, and providing an ad hoc tribunal, subject to very many reservations as to the power of the Governor-General as laid down in Clause 130.
It has been rather suggested or supposed that if a dispute arose, or a complaint of this sort were made, it would of necessity have to come to this ad hoc tribunal. That is not quite right, because it will be seen that under Clause 130 the Governor-General may be of opinion that no action could be taken by him in the matter. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) rightly pointed out, by Sub-section (7) and other Sub-sections of Clause 130, the Governor-General retains very great powers, even after the ad hoc committee have reported upon a particular complaint or abuse which somebody may have desired to refer to the tribunal. The right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) asked how this matter arose, and I think somebody else asked who made the complaints and why did the Princes object to the powers or provisions contained in Clause 129 which was inserted in the Bill, as I have said, for the purpose of helping the States and not for the purpose of carrying out Federation, because water rights are not a federal subject, but for the purpose of helping the States possibly to get this matter out of the field of Paramountcy and to enable any disputes or complaints to be decided by a specially appointed tribunal.
So far as the persons who may be making the complaint about these provisions are concerned, I can only refer the Noble Lord who asked the question to the communication on page 14 of the White Paper where it appears that a letter was sent to the Governor-General by the Maharaja of Patiala, the Nawab of Bhopal and the Maharaja of Bikaner. They made representations —which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon will not desire me to read in detail—in paragraph 14, where they express great fear lest the reference to the ad hoc tribunal, coupled as it was with these overriding powers in certain circumstances of the Governor-General, would be used to their prejudice. If I read the paragraph in question aright, I rather gathered that they thought there was a sort of mixture both of the powers of Paramountcy and of the powers of reference in the ad hoc tribunal, which would be more to their prejudice than if the existing position of Paramountcy were maintained. The Secretary of State was expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion when, in the paragraph in which he dealt with these affairs he said:
His Majesty's Government believe that these provisions"—
that is, the provisions in the Clause with which I am dealing—
would be as much to the advantage of the States as of British India, but they agree that their application in relation to a Federated State is a matter for discussion. They see no objection to proposing to make provision in the Bill whereby a State could on accession agree or not to come within the scope of these Clauses.
Let me say again, it is not a question of the States keeping out in respect of a federal subject. It is not a question of getting them into a federation and letting
them out on a particular federal subject. This matter is, as it were, an extra. The paragraph ends:
A Federated State which did not accept these provisions would, of course, be in the same position as an unfederated State in the case of dispute arising.
Then the position will be that the powers being used by universal consent with such great advantage for the people of India, will be used with regard to the State which prefers to remain in the position in which the State is to-day, and to be dealt with, in the case of abuse of powers, under paramountcy.
I do not know whether I am unduly optimistic when think that these observations ought to satisfy the suspicions that have been raised by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) who feared that this was giving way to the Princes. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot, I am sorry to say, thought it necessary to suggest that this was going to open the door to the backstairs. He spoke about the Governor-General being put into the position of the honest broker. That is the position in which he has been ever since the Government of India looked after water rights so as to evoke the admiration of the whole world. The Noble Lord actually suggested that the Governor-General has been in the position in the past of an honest broker, because the position he will be in the future if the States contract out is precisely the same as that in which he has been in the past.
I understand the position of hon. Members opposite. They distrust and suspect everything that is done to allay any fears, suspicions or doubts of the Princes. That, generally, is their attitude, and I am not complaining of it. It is a very good thing that there should be somebody to check any possibility of excessive attention to a matter of that kind. On this occasion they are carrying their objections a little too far. My Noble Friend has said that this scheme is bad from start to finish. When he has an opportunity of picking a hole in it nobody can complain if he does it with all his eloquence and great knowledge. I think the Government have had the best part of this argument. The new Clause will do no prejudice to anybody.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Would the Attorney-General agree that a Ruler who has reserved his water rights by a declaration in the Instrument of Accession is thereby enabled to extract from a manufacturing concern his own terms in respect of the delivery of water that may have its source in his State?

8.26 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The machinery contained in the whole of these four Clauses is machinery for settling disputes. Everybody realises that this is solely a plan for settling disputes; and, if the ad hoc tribunal under Clauses 129 and 130 is not able to settle a dispute between a. federated State and a Province, that would be dealt with under the paramountcy in precisely the same way in which an unfederated State would be dealt with.

8.27 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think it is quite fair to say that under the paramountcy the relationship between the paramount Power and the Princes who contract out of this particular business will be the same in the future as it has been in the past. After all, the Prince who has not acceded, and who has control over the water supply, will still be sitting in Delhi, and his vote will be 10 times more important than was the case in previous times. The relationship between the paramount Power and the Princes is radically and fundamentally changed by the fact that the Princes are sitting at Delhi and the Government depend upon their votes. If a man is in a position to say, "I have not put this into the pool, and I can still bargain with this counter—I can still use it against the Government," the Government will be 10 times more anxious to meet him than they will to meet his neighbours who have gone in. It is really putting a premium on staying out. I am afraid that the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General will find that the position of the paramount Power in India, once Federation is approved, will be very different from what it has been in the past.

8.29 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry to trouble the Attorney-General further, but I do not think he has made clear how paramountcy is going to work in the
future. One knows that it has worked exceedingly well in the past, but surely the position then was that the Viceroy, as the representative of the paramount Power, could deal with a dispute as between a Province and a State. He could exercise the powers of paramountcy in negotiating with the State and as Governor-General he had power to influence the Province in this matter of irrigation. In the future, all the power that the Governor-General had in regard to this matter of irrigation is going to be taken away from him except in so far as Clauses 129 and 130 have been put into the Bill, and the Bill will not give to the Federal Legislature the power that the present Indian Assembly has to legislate on irrigation matters concerning more than one Province. To-day the Indian Assembly has that power, but it will not reside in the Federal Assembly, as the, Attorney-General has been at great pains to explain. Irrigation is to be entirely a Provincial subject. Nor will the Governor-General, except in so far as these Clauses give him power to set up a special ad hoc tribunal, be able to intervene in the event of a dispute between Provinces or a Province and a State.
Therefore, it is essential to have some new machinery, because no one has any power to settle a dispute except the Viceroy. He, no doubt, in the exercise of his paramountcy, could settle a dispute between one State and another, but no one has any power to settle a dispute concerning a Province except in so far as these Clauses have been put into the Bill. If a State is allowed to contract out of Clauses 129 and 130, then, in the event of a. dispute arising between a Province and a State, the Viceroy will be able to negotiate by virtue of his connection with the State, but who is going to do anything in regard to the Province? The Governor-General cannot set up an ad hoc committee to adjudicate. Such an ad hoc committee cannot be set up merely on behalf of a Province alone, and the Governor-General, therefore, has only a lop-sided machinery with which to act. Therefore I submit that it is no criterion

whatever of what is going to take place in the future to be told that the paramountcy has worked very well hitherto. I do not doubt that it has, because there was the power to deal with both Provinces and States; but there will no longer be that power—it will be distributed in a different way—and it seems to me that, as regards a dispute to which a State is a party, the machine will be one that will only work on one side. Will the Attorney-General tell us exactly how he thinks this machinery is going to work out—how the paramountcy is going to be reconciled with the machinery of an ad hoc committee? I do not quite see how it is going to work.

The Attorney-General says that these Clauses were put in originally to benefit the States, but I do not think the Government have been very successful in finding out what the States think would benefit them. I submit, however, that machinery is essential for the Provinces. This important matter of irrigation, in which disputes may arise between Provinces, cannot be left without any machinery. Some machinery of this kind is absolutely indispensable for adjudicating between Provinces, and it seems to me that a very difficult situation will arise if the machinery cannot also operate for the States. The Attorney-General twitted me with having found some merit in Clauses 129 and 130, but I am not aware that I have ever expressed any opinion about them. I certainly should wish to see much more powers reserved to the centre in regard to irrigation. It is much too important a subject to be made so exclusively provincial as it is. But, if that is not to be, and the Bill does not provide for any central control of irrigation, at least this is a step in the right direction. It is obvious that between the various Provinces, and between Provinces and States, disputes may arise, and, therefore, it is essential to have some machinery which will be effective, which will be just, and which it will be possible to put into practice between all parties.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 135; Noes, 34.

Division No. 153.]
AYES.
[8.35 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bernays, Robert


Anstruther-Gray, W. J. 
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Blindell, James


Apsley, Lord
Balniel, Lord
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Palmar, Francis Noel


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pearson, William G.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peat, Charles U.


Butler, Richard Austen
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hornby, Frank
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. B. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jamieson, Douglas
Rickards, George William


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Conant, R. J. E.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cook, Thomas A.
Leckle, J. A.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Craven-Ellis, William
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, Harry R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lees-Jones, John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dunglass, Lord
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spens, William Patrick


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stones, James


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Molson. A. Hugh Elsdale
White, Henry Graham


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Moreing, Adrian C-
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro, Patrick



Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
North, Edward T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harbord, Arthur
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Major George Davies.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maxton, James


Atholl, Duchess of
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cleary, J. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Logan, David Gilbert
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dobble, William
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeal by State to Railway Tribunal from certain. directions of Federal Railway Authority.)

If the Authority, in the exercise of any executive authority of the Federation in relation to interchange of traffic or maximum or minimum rates and fares or station or service terminals, give any direction to a Federated State, the State may complain that the direction discriminates unfairly against the State, and any such complaint shall be determined by the Railway Tribunal.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.43 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
The Committee will remember that Clause 187 of the Bill as presented to the House was deleted or withdrawn. It was a Clause dealing with the
provisions for the settlement of questions arising between the Railway Authority and the owners of railways in Indian States.
It was represented that the Clause as originally drafted was to some extent vague and did not sufficiently indicate the principle on which important matters, such as disputes should they arise, should be settled by the Railway Tribunal which is being set up under the Bill. I think it will be convenient if I deal with the Clause which I am now moving and the three following Clauses together as they all cover the same subject matter, and really make more
specific, definite and intelligible the principles which we think should apply in these matters. I will deal, first of all, with the new Clause on the Order Paper which I have moved. The idea of the Clause in the Bill was that in the event of disputes arising between the railway authority which controls the railways of British India and any railways in an Indian State controlled either by that State or by the authority in the State should be settled in the last resort by the Railway Tribunal.
The first new Clause provides that if the authority, in the exercise of what is conferred on it by the Bill, namely, the executive authority of the Federation in respect of railways, should give any direction to the Federated State in relation to such matters as the inter- change of traffic, the maxamum or minimum rates and fares, or station or service terminals, then the State, if it feels that those directions are unfair or are such as ought not to be given on the ground that they will discriminate unfairly against the State, may com-plain, and the complaint will be determined by the Railway Tribunal. A State railway may feel that some arrangements in regard to external charges or interchange of traffic with British India lines were unfair, having regard to the Federal charges or arrangements affecting the various systems. If they have a grievance of that kind it is right that they should be able to go to the Railway Tribunal to ascertain whether or not their grievance is just. I do not think that anybody would complain of the Clause in that respect or the manner in which it deals with the situation.

Sir H. CROFT: I notice that in the Seventh Schedule there are words which do not appear in the new Clause. Can the Solicitor-General tell me why it is that safety, routeing and limitation of liability are excluded from the new Clause? Is there any reason for that?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the reason is that safety is a matter which should be dealt with by the Federal Legislature, and, of course, should equally apply to all the railways under the authority of the Federation. If it is right that there should be certain statutory safeguards to ensure the safety of passengers, then if they are right on the
Federal railways they are right on the State railways, and vice versa. If there is any complaint on such matters it can be debated in the Legislature and those concerned can make their voices heard. With regard to the disputes that are to go to the Railway Tribunal, they are disputes that relate to traffic administration. As hon. Members know, in railway matters there are very often disputes as to whether a charge is fair, and particularly when you have two systems one against another a question may very easily arise as to whether the authority which has these wide executive powers is treating a State railway on matters of terminal charges and interchange of traffic as fairly and with the same privileges as it is treating inter se the various systems which it controls itself. These matters are on rather a different basis than questions of safety, which clearly are questions of legislative policy which apply to the country as a whole. The object of this first new Clause is to make specific those points on which we think it proper that a State railway should be able to go to the Railway Tribunal if they think that they are being discriminated against.
The second new Clause (Obligation to afford mutual traffic facilities and to avoid unfair traffic discrimination, etc.) sets out specifically in the Constitution provisions' which in their general character will be very familiar to hon. Members who are acquainted with railway matters. It sets out the general principle, which is to be found in any Railway Act, on which railways should be conducted. The essential words are:
It shall be the duty of the Authority of every Federated State so to exercise their powers in relation to the railways…as to afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving, forwarding and delivering of traffic on those railways, including the receiving, forwarding and delivering of through traffic at through rates…
so as to secure proper communication and no unfair discrimination. That enshrines a principle which everybody will agree is a proper principle for railway legislation. It lays it down that that principle is to be behind and is to be the guide, in fact more than the guide, the controlling principle, of the Railway Tribunal in considering any complaints which may be brought to it under the first Clause. It lays down what I think it will be agreed are the general principles on which rail
ways should conduct their business inter se, where one system joins another and connects with another. The Subsection provides that in cases where these principles have not been complied with complaint shall be made to and determined by the Railway Tribunal.
The third Clause (Construction and reconstruction of railways) deals with a very important matter, namely, the construction and reconstruction of railways. Where you have, as you have in most countries, and as you have in India, systems covering to some extent the same sort of area and there is a proposal to construct a new line, it may well be that an existing system feels that that new line is really unnecessary or, at any rate, that if there is to be a new line in that area it would be better in the general interests of transport that it should be constructed in some direction other than in that which is proposed. For instance, the management of one system may say: "If you construct the new line there it will unfairly compete with what may be the Slightly longer route which we have between these two points, but it is really uneconomic to spend this money to save half an hour or an hour in getting from A to B, when you might perfectly well get from A to B by using the existing lines, some of which belong to us."
There might be a new line proposed in some area where there is no railway at present, as to which no questions could arise, but it might well be that the proposed new line would affect the interests of an existing system. As I have said, there may be two points, A and B. At present traffic from A to B goes round through system A. The suggestion is to make a rather more direct line from A to B which will prejudice the interests of system A. System A would therefore have a case, which certainly ought to be heard, for saying that although half an hour might be saved by constructing the new route between the two points it is not really an economic proposition, having regard to the general interests of the railways of the country as a whole. The third Clause deals with this matter in this way. It says:
The Governor-General…shall make rules requiring the Authority and any Federated State to give notice in such cases as the rules may prescribe of any proposal for constructing a new railway.
That prevents one side or the other getting a proposition under way without the knowledge of the other system which may be interested. The second Subsection of the Clause provides that the rules shall contain provisions enabling objections to be launched by the Authority or by a Federated State on the ground that the carrying out of the proposal will result in unfair or uneconomic competition with a federated railway or a State railway, as the case may be. That is to say in the cases that I have tried to describe one system might feel that the construction of the new railway was really unfair having regard to its own existing reasonable and satisfactory facilities. There are proposals that notice should be given so that objections can be lodged, and the matter referred to the Railway Tribunal. In Sub-section (3) the Committee will see that this is not allowed in any case where the Governor-General in his discretion regards any new line it is proposed to construct as necessary for defence purposes. That is a proper exception, because the Governor-General, having the responsibility for defence, must be able to say whether such a railway is necessary for defence purposes.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I suppose State railway means a Government-owned railway, or rather a native State railway which is ordinarily known as a State railway. How does this stand in relation to company-owned railways? Everyone regards the State railways as a Government-controlled railway.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is that confusion in terminology. A State railway ordinarily means a Government State railway which, of course, will be controlled by the authority. The authority will control all the railways in British India.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: ; Including company-owned lines?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, including company-owned lines. The possibility of dispute is as between railways in British India and railways within a State which are not owned by the Government of India or by a company under the Government of India.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: A companyowned line could not avoid this by saying that they were a Federal railway or State railway?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, the thing is complete. There is nothing left out. Either it is under the authority or is a Federal State railway. Finally I come to the fourth new Clause—(Railway Tribunal) Only two substantial changes are made, and they are changes which, 1 think, will appeal to the Committee.

Sir H. CROFT: Is not this procedure rather unusual? We are now considering new Clauses which occupy nearly two pages of the Order Paper, involving practically the control of the whole railways in India. Could we not take a discussion on the Clauses as far as the Solicitor-General has already gone?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I only want to meet the convenience of the Committee. The main principle has already been approved on earlier Clauses, and the only reason why I am doing this is that I felt it was desirable that hon. Members should also have before them the constitution of the Railway Tribunal. Clearly it is relevant when you are discussing whether questions are a fit matter for a tribunal to know the constitution of the tribunal. However, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

Sir H. CROFT: I only suggested that it was rather unusual in considering new Clauses. They are always taken with great deliberation, but if this is the only case in which the Solicitor-General proposes to adopt this plan I have no great objection to it.

The CHAIRMAN: It is really a matter for the convenience of the Committee, and I think hon. Members will agree that the Solicitor-General was bound to refer to the three following new Clauses in order to explain this particular one. In view of the number and extent of those later new Clauses, I doubt whether it would be reasonable to ask the Committee to refrain from all discussion on those subsequent new Clauses, but I hope they will not repeat on later new Clauses what takes place on this Clause. I do not propose to limit the discussion on either of the new Clauses beyond what is reasonable, but if a
certain latitude is allowed now there will have to be a corresponding limitation on the subsequent Clauses.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want to introduce any revolutionary procedure or to do anything which does not suit the convenience of the Committee. I thought it would be convenient to the Committee if in these opening remarks I covered the whole ground on this subject. Let me say that there are two important points in regard to the fourth new Clause. The first is in Sub-section (2), that the president shall be a judge of the Federal Court. This tribunal will have important matters to decide. They will have to decide on the facts of disputes which may be brought before it and, therefore, it is advisable that the president should be a judge of the Federal Court. The other two will not be representatives of each side, but will be persons who will be selected by the Governor-General in his discretion from a panel of eight persons with railway knowledge or business experience. We feel that such a constitution will result in a tribunal which should inspire the confidence of those who will take their disputes before it. The remaining Subsections of the new Clause deal with a number of ordinary matters, and gives the powers which are conferred on the tribunal. In Sub-section (4) there is provision for an appeal to the Federal Court from a decision of the tribunal on questions of law, but that no appeal shall lie from the decision of the Federal Court on any such appeal.
I think it is only right before I conclude to point out that to a large extent the general nature of the ground covered by this Clause is implicit in the provisions which the Committee have already passed. What the Clause does is to deal in detail, and in sufficient detail, with the principles upon which these disputes are to be tried, whether they are disputes as to traffic facilities as between existing systems or disputes which may arise on a proposal to construct a new line. The personnel of the tribunal has been modified in a way which we hope will commend itself to the Committee and will inspire the complete confidence of the railways of British India and the railways of the Federated States who may have to appeal to the tribunal to settle their disputes.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I wish to ask my hon. and learned Friend for a more detailed explanation arising out of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). The Clause now submitted by the Solicitor-General provides:
If the Authority, in the exercise of any executive authority of the Federation in relation to interchange of traffic or maximum or minimum rates and fares or station or service terminals, give any direction to a Federated State, the State may complain that the direction discriminates unfairly against the State, and any such complaint shall be determined by the Railway Tribunal.
That seems to give a very substantial right of appeal in those matters. I now turn to Item 20 in the Federal Legislative List in the Seventh Schedule which I think was in the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. Clause 100 provides that the Federal Legislature has power to make laws on any of the matters enumerated in this List and the List includes as Item 20:
Railways, that is to say, the regulation of Federal railways; the regulation of other railways in respect of maximum and minimum rates and fares, terminal charges, safety, routeing and interchangeability of traffic, and limitation of liability; construction of new railways other than minor railways; reconstruction of existing railways other than minor railways.
That includes a great many more matters than those referred to in the proposed new Clause which the Solicitor-General has just submitted. I hope, therefore, that he will further enlighten the Committee upon this point. Is it the deliberate intention of the new Clause to make any substantial limitation in what seems to be the right of appeal at present. The item which I have quoted seems to give a very much wider latitude than is given in the proposed new Clause.

9.7 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Perhaps I did not fully appreciate the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth but in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken I would point out that the item in the Seventh Schedule to which he refers deals with the legislative powers of the Federal Legislature, in which, of course, the Federated States have their representatives. Clause 187 which was
originally in the Bill but was struck out was not, and the new Clauses which I am now submitting are not concerned with legislation but with possible disputes arising out of action by the Railway Authority. It is a matter not of the legislative but of the executive power of the Federation in connection with railways. What we have done in the first new Clause is to enumerate those matters in which it seemed to us that disputes might arise, as a result Of executive action, which it would be proper to refer to the tribunal.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for the information. May the Committee take it that the new Clause in no way limits the ordinary right of appeal which would exist in regard to any of the matters referred to in Item 20 of List 1 in the Seventh Schedule 1 If there is no limitation of those rights my point is met.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL M: I am not sure what my hon. and learned Friend means when he refers to appeals in respect of matters in Item 20 because Item 20 is merely an enumeration of matters on which the Federal Legislature can legislate.

Mr. LYONS: ?
I appreciate that point, but in the first new Clause there is a statement giving a right of appeal in connection with a much narrower list of matters than those which are set out in Item 20. I am anxious to know whether there is anything in the Clause which prejudices the position at all in relation to the matters mentioned in Item 20.

9.10 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The Committee are aware that in the White Paper which described the attitude of the Princes on certain difficulties connected with the structure of the Bill, the railway Clauses were indicated as having given great offence to the Princes. I think they were described as being "entirely unacceptable" to the Princes. I imagine that this group of new Clauses—and I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here to explain them—represent an endeavour to meet the point of view of the Princes and to square up those difficulties. I can understand the first Clause of this series on which the Committee
is now trying to concentrate as being one which would be acceptable to the Princes. It gives them the right of appeal and objection. But the second Clause seems to impose certain obligations upon them which did not, I think, appear earlier, and I should be glad to know from the Solicitor-General whether the Princes have acceded to it or not.

9.12 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend is right in saying that this matter was referred to in the White Paper. The main point mentioned there was, that Clause 187 as it then appeared in the Bill was not satisfactory and that it might be construed as having the effect that the Federated States and the Railway Authority would not appear as equals before the tribunal. These were obviously proper points to raise, and we think we have met them. I cannot state categorically that the Princes have expressed approval of the various steps which we have taken, but we have considered their representations and we have put down these new Clauses which we believe meet the points made by them. As I say, I think in substance they were all perfectly fair points. I am not suggesting, of course, that these new Clauses cover every conceivable detail. In regard to the second new Clause, I do not think that any railway company in the world would object to that obligation. It is a familiar type of Clause in legislation covering railway systems, and indeed it might have been taken for granted without putting it into the Bill, that the railways would work together in accordance with experience. However, we thought it right to state it expressly in the Bill. With regard to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), I am not sure even yet that I follow his point. Item 20 deals with legislative powers, but the fact that there are these legislative powers gives no one a right of appeal of any kind. What the new Clause which I am now proposing does is to say what kind of executive action in connection with railways would give a right of appeal. That is quite a different matter from the list of subjects in Item 20 which is confined to the powers of the Federal Legislature.

Sir A. KNOX: I want to ask one or two simple questions about the last of these Clauses.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put his questions when we come to the Clause to which they refer. I have said that I do not want to avoid any discussion on the later Clauses, and, if the hon. and gallant Member's points refer specifically to the last of these Clauses, he might postpone his questions till we come to that Clause.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: It was interesting to hear from the Solicitor-General that the Government believe that these Clauses meet the strong objections that were raised by the Princes in their note to the Viceroy. I suppose that he cannot give an assurance that they completely meet those objections May I put this point to my hon. and learned Friend? These Clauses will appear in the Instruments of Accession. What will be the effect if in one State the Instrument of Accession accepts one or more of these Clauses—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: So far as these Clauses are concerned, they will all be accepted by a Federated State. A State can, of course, put forward proposals for excepted items in the federal list. Apart from that, it can only put forward a proposal to except a Clause in the Bill if the Clause specifically authorises that procedure. Therefore, a State which accedes as to railways will be bound by all the Clauses which we are now discussing.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I understand, then, that a Prince must accept all these Clauses?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If he accedes as to railways.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: There is a further point. The ruler of one State may accept all these Clauses, but the ruler of a neighbouring State may not accept them. That may interfere considerably with the railway system or the reformed railway system. What will be the procedure to deal with that situation?

9.18 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot, of course, anticipate too much. My hon. Friend will realise that it is open to His Majesty whether or not he accepts the proposals put forward by a State which desires to federate as sufficient to entitle it to accede and to have an Instrument of Accession. I think that the point
my hon. Friend is putting is this. Suppose that a State which has a railway system desires to federate, but desires to except, that is to say not to accede, with respect to railways. It would be improper for me to anticipate what action the Government would take with regard to such 4 proposal, but clearly they would have their hands completely free to say, "If you want to accede you must accede as to railways, or make some arrangement which we are satisfied will enable your railway system to work in with the other systems." Apart from accession as to railways, the position would be the same as at present. I do not think that one can speculate to any great extent as to the hypothetical case of the kind put by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Do I understand that if the ruler of a state does not accede to a sufficient extent, say, with regard to railways, there would be the possibility of his accession being refused?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend has again and again explained that it is not his intention to accept an accession to federation unless it is a real accession. That is to say, that accession is as to a substantial number of the powers.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Obligation, to afford mutual traffic facilities and to avoid unfair discrimination, etc.)

(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority and every Federated State so to exercise their powers in relation to the railways with which they are respectively concerned as to afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of traffic upon those railways, including the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of through traffic at through rates, and as to secure that there shall be between one railway system and another no unfair discrimination by the granting of undue preferences or otherwise and no unfair or uneconomic competition.

(2) Any complaint by the Authority against a Federated State or by a Federated State against the Authority on the ground that the provisions of the preceding subsection have not been complied with shall be made to and determined by the Railway Tribunal.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Construction, and reconstruction, of railways.)

(1) The Governor-General acting in his discretion shall make rules requiring the Authority and any Federated State to give notice in such oases as the rules may prescribe of any proposal for constructing a railway or for altering the alignment or gauge of a railway, and to deposit plans.

(2) The rules so made shall contain pro- visions enabling objections to be lodged by the Authority or by a Federated State on the ground that the carrying out of the proposal will result in unfair or uneconomic competition with a federal railway or a State railway, as the case may be, and, if an objection so lodged is not withdrawn within the prescribed time, the Governor-General shall refer to the Railway Tribunal the question whether the proposal ought to be carried into effect, either without modification or with such as the Tribunal may approve, and the proposal shall not be proceeded with save in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal.

(3) This section shall not apply in any case where the Governor-General in his discretion certifies that for reasons connected with defence effect should or should not be given to a proposal, and the decision so certified of the Governor-General shall be binding upon the Authority and any Federated State.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.22 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: In this new Clause it appears that there are one or two new rules required from the rulers of states. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General can tell me whether this Clause has given satisfaction to the Princes or their representatives, because I think I am right in saying that there is a power of interference here which was very rarely suggested under the present regime. Under this new Clause rules will require
the authority and any Federated State to give notice in such cases as the rules may prescribe of any proposal for constructing a railway or for altering the alignment or gauge of a railway";
and so on. This is a very big power. It would almost satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) who, with his modern Socialistic vision, desires very largely to
control the industries of the country, and it is a very big undertaking that we are now considering. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General whether he has any indication that this very wide power is acceptable to the Princes, because that seems to me to be very important. If it is it will be a great encouragement to the Committee to know that we shall not have to recommit the Bill.

9.24 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend. The reason for putting in these special Clauses is that the States which own railways necessarily feel that, on the one hand, they have their comparatively small systems, and, on the other hand, there is the great railway system of British India, with all its resources and facilities, and there is the Railway Authority with its great power. I do not want to impute motives to the Railway Authority, but it would be much more likely that the large British India system might, by building a line round the borders of a State or extending its facilities by new construction, compete with a State system and divert traffic at present going through that State system than the converse. Therefore although I quite agree that this Clause does impose certain obligations to give notice in respect of certain matters I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that a Clause of this kind is regarded as a safeguard by the States interested in a railway system. Although it is quite true that if they want to build a new line they have to give notice, yet if the British India system wants to build a line the State is given a locus standi in putting their point of view, before the Railway Tribunal, if they think that there would be unfair competition.

9.26 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The first Sub-section of this Clause seems to envisage very large work, such perhaps as the tearing up of a permanent way or altering the gauge of a railway. Is that a new power or does that exist in British India at the present time so far as the States are concerned. Does that mean that this authority will have power to tear up a permanent way or lay down a new gauge? I am not suggesting that it would not be perhaps to the advantage of the whole railway system, but this does sug
gest interference with the territories of the Princes.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. All it comes to is this. Suppose that a, railway system in a State is proposing to build or alter the alignment or gauge of a railway, then they have to give notice to the other side. In nine cases out of 10 the other system will not be in the least interested, but you have to have general rules covering all the cases where some alteration which might be material is concerned. For instance, one railway system might have a narrow gauge line such as did not compete in any sense with the other system. If it was converted into a broad guage it might make all the difference. This Clause merely means that where new construction or reconstruction on either side is proposed, notice must be given of any such intention.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Railway policy as I understand it is put under the Minister and not under the railway authority. Is not the matter of construction a matter of railway policy rather than of the actual administration of the railway?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Obviously, if there is a proposal to construct a new railway the railway authority will know all about it. All that this Clause says is that the railway authority have got to give notice of any alteration proposed on a railway system in a Federated State, and they can both go to the Tribunal if either thinks that they have got a complaint. The question as to who is responsible for policy does not arise.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Railway Tribunal.)

(1) There shall be a Tribunal (in this Act referred to as "the Railway Tribunal") consisting of a President and two other persons to be selected to act in each case by the Governor-General in his discretion from a panel of eight persons appointed by him in his discretion, being persons with railway, administrative, or business experience.

(2) The President shall be such one of the judges of the Federal Court as may be appointed for the purpose by the Governor-General in his discretion after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and shall hold office for such period of not less than
five years as may be specified in the appointment, and shall be eligible for reappointment for a further period of five years or any less period.

Provided that if the President ceases to be a judge of the Federal Court, he shall thereupon cease to be President of the Tribunal and, if he is for any reason temporarily unable to act, the Governor-General in his discretion may after the like consultation appoint another judge of the Federal Court to act for the time being in his place.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Railway Tribunal to exercise such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by this Act, and for that purpose the Tribunal may make such orders, including interim orders and orders for the payment of compensation or damages and of costs and orders for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, as the circumstances of the case may require, and it shall be the duty of the Authority and of every Federated State and of every other person or authority affected thereby to give effect to any such order.

(4) An appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from any decision of the Railway Tribunal on a question of law, but no appeal shall lie from the decision of the Federal Court on any such appeal.

(5) The Railway Tribunal or the Federal Court, as the case may be, may, on application made for the purpose, if satisfied that in view of an alteration in the circumstances it is proper so to do, vary or revoke any previous order made by it.

(6) The President of the Railway Tribunal may, with the approval of the Governor-General in his discretion, make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Tribunal and the fees to be taken in proceedings before it.

(7) Subject to the provisions of this section relating to appeals to the Federal Court, no court shall have any jujrisdiction with respect to any matter with respect to which the Railway Tribunal has jujrisdiction.

(8) There shall be paid out of the revenues of the Federation to the members of the Railway Tribunal other than the President such remuneration as may be determined by the Governor-General in his discretion, and the administrative expenses of the Railway Tribunal, including any such remuneration as aforesaid, shall be charged on the revenues of the Federation.

The Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment as to the amount to be included in respect of the administrative expenses of the Railway Tribunal in any estimates of expenditure laid by him before the Chambers of the Federal Legislature.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.30 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT
The first Sub-section of this new Clause is very vital. After all, this Tribunal, consisting of a President and two other persons, will be a very important authority in what is, I think, either the third or fourth greatest railway system in the world. India is one of the great railway territories of the world, and it has, I believe, something like 40,000 miles of railways. I am not surprised at the acquiescing silence of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the front opposition bench here. They really must be pleased to see a single authority swallowing something which covers a territory occupied by one-fifth of the human race. It is very noticeable - how the Opposition have ceased to oppose and how they keep quiet on this question.
I want to ask the Solicitor-General or the Under-Secretary if he can give us some fuller information with regard to the character of the persons to be appointed to this tribunal. It is provided that they shall be persons with railway, administrative, or business experience, but may we have some sort of indication as to the character of these gentlemen? Is there definitely going to be a representative on that panel who can be regarded as a satisfactory representative from the point of view of the vast amount of capital invested in these railways? Are we quite certain that these people will be free from any political influence? I think that will be the desire of hon. Members of the Opposition as much as of those in any other section of the House. Can we have some indication as to whether there are to be any limits with regard to these appointments? For instance, will it be possible for both these representatives to be Indians, in view of the enormous holding in the Indian State Railways and in the Indian Company railways by British shareholders. May we have some assurance of a definite character with regard to that before we pass from this Clause.

9.33 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am a little sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend should have raised the point he did. I very much doubt whether he or anyone else could suggest better words which could be inserted in an Act of Parliament to ensure that the right sort
of men were selected. They are to be appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion. That is to say we give to the man on whom we are imposing the greatest responsibility in connection with all matters under this Bill the responsibility of making the selections for this Tribunal. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any suggestions for bettering the wording we have open minds on the subject and would be willing to consider there. We direct the Governor-General to direct his mind to what we think are the relevant types of experience. These two men are to have railway, administrative or business experience. To say that one of these is to be an Englishman or that one is to be an Indian, or that one is to have interests in capital, or to be the holder of £10,000 worth of ordinary railway stock, that is not suggested, but that is the kind of difficulty that arises if one tries to go into detail in questions of this kind. I instanced that only to show how difficult it would be to put specific qualifications in a Clause of this kind. We have done out best to ensure that the best possible panel of men shall be selected, and I cannot myself think of any words which we could have used which would better express the intentions we have. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has any suggestions to make.

9.36 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: My hon. and learned Friend has misunderstood me. I was not suggesting there should be somebody who was himself a shareholder. All I wanted to secure was that the Committee might feel some assurance on this subject, because the Government have not been too particular in dealing with British interests in many parts of this Bill, and I wished to be well assured that the enormous interests to which I have referred would be borne in mind. I am not ready to part with these vast British interests in India and to allow them to fall into the hands of some people who, no doubt, will be excellent for five or 10 or 15 years without thinking of what may happen in the future. It is conceivable that we may ultimately have a Governor-General who is not at all acceptable to the general body of opinion in this country. We may have a succession of admirable Governors General, but, on the other hand, we may
in the days to come have somebody who may be carried away by political influences, and that is why I put the point I submitted. The Solicitor-General has asked me what words I would suggest. I was not thinking that we ought to say there should be one Indian and one British, but the Clause might contain some words to the effect that regard should always be had to the vital interests of those who have financed and built up the whole railway system of 'India, without which the India we know to-day would not exist.
I am sorry if my hon. and learned Friend is pained that I should have raised this question, but what he feels is nothing to the pain that some of us feel that His Majesty's Government should appear to take the view that now we can really disregard all these things. I do not feel like that. I said earlier in the Debate that I had not a penny of money in Indian railways, but I happen to be trustee for a large number of people, and throughout this country there are hundreds of thousands of persons who draw, very likely, the whole of their livelihood from those railways, and I cannot see why, even at this late hour, we should not start to put British interests first. After all, the Indian railways were built originally with British capital and are to-day largely financed with British capital, and I feel most strongly that we ought to put every safeguard we can in the Bill to ensure that those great interests do not fall into the area of politics, that we do not have these vast concerns made a shuttlecock of party politics.

9.39 p. m

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I must say a word or two more. We are dealing here with the constitution of a tribunal which is to perform quasi-judicial functions. Under the machinery provided by the Clause I should like to say that it is impossible, at any rate it is very difficult, to conceive that anyone will be on the panel who will not pay proper regard to all interests in dealing with the issues which come before him as a member of the tribunal, and the suggestion that in setting up what is a quasi-judicial tribunal we should say that one member is to be a representative of the interests of in-vestors—

Sir H. CROFT: I did not use the word "representative," or if I did so I wish to withdraw it. I meant someone who might be regarded as being au fait with all these questions, and not hostile to British interests.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think there is anything between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, but I think the Committee will bear me out that the hon. and gallant Member did leave the impression that he was suggesting a representative—

Sir H. CROFT: I withdraw the word "representative," if I used it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member may not have used the word, but he gave the impression which I have mentioned. As I have said before, my hon. and gallant Friend has not suggested any other form of words than that which appears in the Clause. We want to see on this tribunal men of the highest possible character and experience who will have a proper regard to all the interests which are brought before them in what is, I admit, a matter the importance of which it is perhaps hard to over-estimate.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I share the regret which the Solicitor-General expressed that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) should have asked whether there were people of suitable character in India to undertake work of this sort.

Sir H. CROFT: We are entitled to ask these questions. I refuse to be bullied by these flank attacks. We are discussing something of major importance, something which will affect both the people of India and this country for possibly centuries, and every hon. Member is entitled to ask for the fullest information. The Solicitor-General comes along—

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: May I—

Sir H. CROFT: I am sorry I have kept on. My protest will be made later.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I was just coming to my point, which was to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend's apprehensions were quite groundless, because persons of the type who have to be selected are still to be obtained in India as has been the case for the last 20 years. My
hon. and gallant Friend would have been better able to appreciate the situation had he spent only two or three weeks in India. Twenty years ago I knew one of the leading railway engineers in India who was an Indian. There are people of character in India of all classes, Europeans particularly, who would come within the terms of this Clause, but the point I wish to get at is what is really meant here by "administrative." The bulk of the people with experience of railway administration in India at present are Europeans. Does "administrative" here refer to officials of the Services I Then there is the question of the meaning of "business experience." Do these qualifications include professional men Would they include a chartered accountant in private practice, a solicitor in private practice, whether an Englishman or an Indian, or a mining engineer—mining engineers are an important body of people there, particularly mining engineers from Durham and Scotland—and would it include an electrical engineer l There are people holding such positions in India who are equivalent in experience and knowledge to men of business experience. If the Solicitor-General could explain that that would widen the scope for appointing these men, perhaps it would remove some of the apprehensions of my hon. and gallant Friend.

9.44 p.m.

Sir JOHN WALLACE: I am not sure that I look at this matter entirely from the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), although I think he has put a very relevant case to the Committee. I wish to ask whether the Government have finally made up their minds that a president and two other persons constitute a suitable body to deal with the important questions which will come before such a tribunal. There is to be a panel of 10, but having regard to the fact that vast interests are involved and that there are many conflicting interests I doubt very much whether a president and two other persons, however experienced they may be, will be sufficient to adjudicate upon the various points which will be raised. In this country we sometimes have three judges to decide in a court of appeal upon the fate of one man. As the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said, this is a vast railway system
Unless the Government have definitely made up their minds that a president and two others are adequate to deal with the various questions which will be brought before them, I suggest that the two persons might be increased to four in order that the interests which are bound to be involved may be adequately represented and considered.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: This tribunal follows in principle the constitution of the Railway and Canal Commission in this country, a judge presiding and two persons of great experience sitting with him. It is a tribunal which has given enormous satisfaction in dealing with all the matters which come before it. The point I want to raise is this: An appeal is to lie from this tribunal on points of law to the Federal Court. That, of course, is quite proper. What I cannot understand are the last words of Sub-section (4) of the Clause, and why an appeal on a point of law from the Federal Government to the Judicial Committee should be prohibited. Under Clause 198 an appeal may be brought to His Majesty in Council from the decision of the Federal Court by leave of the Federal Court or of His Majesty in Council. When we consider the subjects with which this tribunal will have to deal it is obvious that very important points of law, possibly between a Federated State and the Federation, may very easily arise in the disputes before the tribunal, and may go to the Federal Court. It is very difficult to understand why we should provide in this Bill that no appeal should lie from the Federal Court to the Privy Council with regard to very important points of law which may arise. I ask the learned Solicitor-General and the Government to consider very carefully before the Report stage whether the last words in the Sub-section referred to ought not to be struck out in the interests of all parties.

9.48 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: I wish to ask one question with regard to the protection of the Princes before the tribunal. I understand that there is to be a panel of eight, from which the Governor-General at his discretion is to select three to adjudicate on any case. I would suggest that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Sir J. Wallace) should be considered. It is very evident from
what the learned Solicitor-General said that in a dispute between a Federated State and this enormous Indian railway system the State would be at a distinct disadvantage. How is the Governor-General going to get a fair proportion in that tribunal to look after the interests of a Federated State which is complaining perhaps of an unfair encroachment by the railway system?
Then there is the question of the payment of members of the tribunal. Will the panel be paid or not? The railway tribunal is to be paid, I see, from Federal funds. We were told originally that the extra cost of Federation in India will be £560,000, but we are continually hearing of new charges which are to be put on these funds. Was this charge originally considered or not? Then suppose that a Federated State does not agree to abide by the finding of the railway tribunal, what power has the tribunal to enforce its will and decision?

9.50 p. m.

Mr. REMER: The few observations I shall make are prompted mainly by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). I am prompted to make them because those of us who are not making many speeches in opposition to this Bill but are in opposition to it, are in considerable difficulty when we see morning after morning a large number of Amendments to the Bill in the form of new Clauses. Are we, when this Bill comes to the Report stage, to be allowed opportunity to study these new Clauses?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows that what he can do on the Report stage has nothing to do with the Chairman of Committees.

Mr. REMER: I was not putting my point by way of asking you for a decision. I was asking the Government whether we on the back benches can have facilities to study the Clauses which will be in the Bill when it comes to the Report stage, so that we can judge the proposals on their merits?

9.52 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Before the learned Solicitor-General replies I want to refer to the point that has been raised with regard to the payment of members of this tribunal. In doing so I would sug
gest that the mere fact that we can compare the Railway and Canal Commission in this country, excellent as it is, with this mighty authority, which has to control a colossal railway system, shows that sometimes we lack a sense of proportion. Has there been any indication of the scale of remuneration or of the type of man who will be employed in this capacity? It appears to me that you must have, to use a colloquial expression, big men, and they must be adequately paid, and must be like the best of our judges in this country, lifted out of all the commonplace turmoil of public life, and men who will not desire to go back to it. It is a vast concern that we are contemplating. Can we have an indication that the remuneration that the members of the tribunal will receive will be on such a scale that you will get the type of man who will throw up a big business job in order to take on this very vital task?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: It would not be a permanent job surely? There would be a committee held for two or three days perhaps in different parts of the country.

Sir H. CROFT: My hon. Friend regretted just now that I have not been with him in India. I am sorry he has been so long in India that he has quite forgotten to look after British interests. But I do not think there is much difference of opinion between us on this matter. All I am asking for is an assurance that there will be the very highest type of man engaged in this work. It is vital to aim at that principle, in order that there may be supreme confidence amongst the people of India as well as those in this country that this authority can be looked up to and is as deserving of admiration as is the Railway and Canal Commission here.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We are extremely sorry that the Government have decided that the panel from which this tribunal is to be appointed is to be a panel in the discretion of the Governor-General. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was very anxious that British interests in India should be protected on this tribunal because of the vast amount of money involved, but if that is an argument for special representation of British interests, surely it is equally an argument in favour
of special representation for the interests of the Indian Federal Government. These railways are owned, some of them, by the State; and in any case they are to provide the money for the payment of the members of the tribunal, and apart from that the interests of the people at large in India are very specially involved in the proper or the ill use of the railway administration. However, I will not enter into an argument with my hon. and gallant Friend now. Perhaps later in the smoke room we can continue the controversy.

Sir H. CROFT: May I just point out that the State railways of India to which my hon. Friend referred are in fact largely owned by the shareholders in this country? I think I am right in saying that the majority of the shares undoubtedly are held in this country.

9.58 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In the early part of this Debate my hon. and gallant Friend suggested that I should answer each question, one by one, and I started on that principle, but I found that my hon. and gallant Friend got ahead of me in the number of speeches that he delivered. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) put certain points to me. We are satisfied that the people to whom he referred, such as chartered accountants and professional men of all kinds, are covered by the words in the Clause, "railway, administrative, or business experience," and the word "administrative" would cover not only officials but people with administrative experience in any field. We will, however, consider the matter to see that the type of man who obviously might be useful to this tribunal is covered. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Sir J. Wallace) suggested that the tribunal should be enlarged. I have had some experience of Tribunals, and I am not sure that size is really an advantage. I think there is a great deal to be said for a tribunal of three. Anyhow, we looked into this matter very carefully. The argument for a larger tribunal was put very well, if I may say so, by my hon. Friend, but on the other hand there is an argument for a small one. We came to this conclusion on balance, and I think most of those who have had experience will agree that we came to a wise decision in coming down on the side of the number three.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) raised a point about there being no appeal to the Privy Council. I think there is only one appeal from the Railway and Canal Commission. I am not sure whether it is to the House of Lords, but I think it is, and we thought that that was a useful precedent to follow. These can well be matters where it is important that there should not be too long a delay in arriving at a decision. They impinge on the area of administration, questions of new construction, and so on, and although I appreciate the force of what my hon. and learned Friend said and the importance of this point, and although I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will consider what he said, we did consider the matter, and came to the conclusion, after balancing one advantage against another, that on the whole the advantage lay in having one appeal on a point of law.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) really misconceived the nature of this tribunal. He said that a State railway would be at a disadvantage, as if the tribunal was a body deciding questions by counting heads or recording votes, but I would remind him that it is a judicial or semi-judicial body. No one would suggest that a State railway system would not be able to afford adequate legal representation, and really I think it would be wrong to remain under the impression that this tribunal in deciding these difficult questions would be influenced by the fact that one railway was a larger body financially, according to the principle of mileage, than the railway system standing on the other side of the court. The hon. and gallant Member also raised the question of finance. So far as this court is concerned, we hope that a very large part of its cost will be paid by the court fees, which will quite properly be charged, and for the estimate which has been made—I have not got the details before me—we do not think it will be a large item. That estimate was made with due allowance for contingencies. I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Member is right in saying that these are new charges that are constantly being brought up.
May I say one word in regard to the hon. and gallant Baronet's last speech? I cannot help thinking that he may be under a misapprehension. He spoke of this body controlling this vast railway system, but the body which will control this vast system is the railway authority. It is not the tribunal, any more than it is a judge here who may have to decide a dispute between two railway companies or anybody else, that is controlling the various bodies who come before him. With regard to remuneration, the judge of the federal court will continue to receive his salary as It judge. We do not contemplate that this tribunal will be continuously occupied. The work will be ad hoc work, which will be paid according to the demand on the services of those concerned. We shall have to see as we go along; if there is more work than we think there will be, the Governor-General has full discretion to pay remuneration which will attract the best men. We contemplate that the fees quite properly paid will practically cover the expenses of the court. Perhaps we may now get the Clause.

10.8 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I am very sorry that the Solicitor-General has not been able to use more encouraging words to the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) in regard to his plea. I venture to suggest that this is a matter-which the Government ought to reconsider most carefully. Issues amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds may come before this tribunal, and the economic future of important States may be seriously jeopardised. The right of appeal to the Privy Council is one of the most important of the few remaining links that bind the Empire together, and I cannot believe that you are going to satisfy the States, give them what they are asking for here, or make it more likely that they will come into the Federation, if you are going to put them under a tribunal from which no ultimate appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council lies on a point of law. I hope very much that the Government will give this matter further consideration, because it appears to me to be altogether wrong in principle that matters of such great importance to the economic welfare of a State should be capable of decision without appeal to the supreme judicial tribunal of the Empire.

10.10 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: It has distressed me that I find myself differing from the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), but I venture to address the Committee for this reason, that in my early days I was very much interested in railway matters, because my father was responsible for the construction of a very large part of the railway system in this country, and of a great many foreign railways as well. I am convinced that in railway matters, whether you are considering the interests of traders, who are interested in carrying on their trade by means of the transport of railways, or whether it is a question of the acquisition of land and such things for the construction of railways, there are two things that are essential. One is that you should have a court whose decision is clear-cut, and as nearly as possible final, and the second is that you should get a quick decision. A third thing is the question of cost.
I yield to no one, not even the Noble Lord, in my anxiety to maintain on general questions the right of appeal to the Privy Council and the immense importance of that appeal; but in these railway matters connected with India the first thing you have got to consider is that they are obviously going to be purely Indian questions, concerning Indian railways. If you set up a tribunal —I think that the Government are right in limiting it to three members, and right again in making the president a judge of the High Court, so that you will have a high judicial authority in your first court, and again in your appeal to the federal court—I do not think that it would be in the interest of railway development or of the traders if you insisted on a third appeal to the Privy Council over here. It is true that the appeal asked for is on legal questions, but I think that in the procedure provided you have ample judicial authority behind the decision and behind the final decision in the federal court. With regard to the question of expense, you hear a great deal about the finances of India being in a parlous condition, and we do not want to throw away money that can be ill spared in what I regard as an unnecessary appeal which would involve enormous additional expense.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I think that the speech to which we have just listened is based upon a misapprehension. Under Clause 198 there is no right of appeal in the sense that my hon. Friend has just mentioned. The right of appeal under Clause 198 is a right of appeal from the Federal Court with the leave of the Federal Court or with the leave of the Privy Council, and therefore a right of appeal which is exceptionally safeguarded in order to see that it is not a frivolous right, and that is not frivolously exercised, and that it should only be brought in cases where matters of great importance are involved. That is the whole point that is desired to be exercised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). As to the question which has been raised by the learned Solicitor-General as to the possibility of delay, no doubt the question of delay would be taken into account either by the Federal Court or the Privy Council in deciding whether leave should be granted. I do hope the Government will give further consideration to this important matter.

10.15 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I want to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman only on one point. I am quite aware that the sole difference between us is as to whether an appeal would lie to the Privy Council on a special case granted by the Federal Court. There is no necessity, I hold, for any appeal to the Privy Council in this particular case, concerning railway matters which are brought before the Railway Tribunal in India.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: That is where we differ.

Sir B. PETO: There was no misconception in what I said. I am quite aware of the position under Clause 198 but I do not think that ought to apply in this case.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I associate myself with the views of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), and the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). We all agree that the Tribunal will be called upon to adjudicate on matters of very great importance. The question has been raised
whether there shall be only three upon the Tribunal. I fail to see why a higher court, dealing with matters of this kind, should have only three members when, as is well known, there are five in the House of Lords.

Sir B. PETO: This is a Railway Tribunal, not a federal court.

Mr. LEVY: I know, but the Tribunal are to be called upon to adjudicate upon matters which are of very great importance, and they will be dealing with the third largest railway system in the world. To compare the size of those railways with that of the railways in England is not in proportion. If the number were increased by two, as the hon. and gallant Member for Dunfermline (Sir J. Wallace) very properly said, making five in all, that would be very much more satisfactory to the people concerned.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). As is usual with speeches made from the Opposition Benches, British interests were regarded as a secondary consideration. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) had been endeavouring to see that British interests were properly protected, and there was no reason why he should have been chided on that account. Having regard to the discussion which has taken place, the Clause ought to be reconsidered and in some respects redrafted, because it could be improved after reflection on the part of Ministers.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I hope the Government will not take the slightest notice of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), who is an authority on water but possibly not on India. I hope the Government will not increase the number of the board. It is all very well to say that they should make it larger, but the Government are wise in keeping the number small, and not making the board a debating society. It is much better to keep it small, particularly because you do not want a board of this kind to be representative of varying interests. There has been some confusion about this board. I gather that it is purely a tribunal, but in the Clause there are two references to
the administrative expenses of the Railway Tribunal.
I conclude that those administrative expenses might be one of two things. They might be expenses for administering, say, a particular part or a particular system of the railways which was badly run. I do not, however, think that that is what they are. On the other hand, they might be—and I think the words mean this, though they might mean two things—administrative expenses for clerks or anything that the board itself needs for the purpose of carrying on its work. If that is so, the matter is perfectly clear, but there has been some confusion during the Debate as to whether this body was one for giving judgment, or whether it had some connection with administration; and, as this is a0020new Clause, I think it would be just as well that it should be made clear once and for all whether these expenses incurred by the board are simply expenses involved in giving judgment on this, that or the other subject on which there may be occasion for the Board to act, and have absolutely nothing to do whatever in any respect with the running of the railways.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The administrative expenses of this tribunal are simply the ordinary expenses of a tribunal —for example, for the hiring of rooms for use as a court, for the purchase of ink, paper, blotting paper and so on, and for the payment of the necessary staff. They have nothing to do with the administration of the railways.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

10.23 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I was about to rise, Sir Dennis, when the Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time" was put, but you did not see me. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) made what seemed to me to be a wholly unjustifiable attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). He suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Elland, while he might be an expert on water, was no authority on India, but at least my hon. Friend has not hesitated for over two years to put forward his views on this subject, and I do not think the attack was justified.
This Clause and the three previous Clauses are proposed in place of Clause 187, which was originally in the Bill. Clause 187 was presumably based upon the Report of the Joint Select Committee. Everything in the Bill is supposed to be based on the Report of the Joint Select Committee—that Committee which has enabled a great many people to put their consciences in pawn and forget that they have any responsibility as legislators. Here we have the Government dropping their original Clause, based upon the Report of the Joint Select Committee, and replacing it by four new Clauses. Therefore, they cannot call the Joint Select Committee, or even the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), to their aid in support of this particular proposal, which is very different from the proposals originally contained in Clause 187. Here we have the abandonment of the principle that the ultimate defender of the liberties of His Majesty's subjects in all parts of the world should be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present when these Clauses were moved, but I may explain to him that we have already had a more or less general discussion upon them. I indicated at the beginning that there must be some limit to the discussion on the other Clauses, and the hon. Member must now confine his remarks very strictly to the Clause which is before the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The first Clause dealt with the question of appeal by a State to the Federal Railway Tribunal from certain directions of the Federal Railway Authority, and it was on the question that that Clause he read a Second time that the general discussion took place. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must not think that because I retired for a short period for refreshment after spending a long time in the Chamber, that I am not familiar with what has happened in the meantime. On that a discussion took place as to whether the grounds of appeal were as wide as the provisions of the executive authority set forth in the Eighth Schedule. So I am not unfamiliar with what was done about that matter. I am now speaking about Sub-section (4) and Sub-section (7) of
this Clause on the Motion, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." Under Sub-section (4) together with Sub-section (7) the question definitely arises whether there should be an appeal to the Privy Council, and at the point when you, Sir Dennis, suggested that I was wandering wide, I was raising that particular question, and not the question which arises under the first Clause as to whether it is possible, for example, to challenge whether there should be responsibility for traffic through a State or not. That is a question of the competence of the tribunal as a tribunal of the first instance.
I am not discussing the issue which has already been raised and discussed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). I am discussing the very much wider constitutional issue, as to whether or not there should be excluded from the purview of the judicial committee of the Privy Council issues which might arise under this group of Clauses. That seems to me to be one of the things rather fundamental at this time when in one of the Dominions the status of the Judicial Committee has been challenged in an acute way, and in a second Dominion it has been challenged in not quite such an acute way. I take the view that as one who believes that ultimately the continued existence and the security and safety of the British Empire depend on emphasising the status of this country in both the Empire and the British Commonwealth of Nations, it is important that we should not lightly say that people have not the right to come to that ultimate tribunal, not strictly speaking a judicial tribunal but one existing to advise His Majesty's Government in respect of what might be called his administrative functions. That is a thing not lightly to be entertained, and it is because of that that I have seen fit briefly to take part in the debate on this Clause.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Use of His Majesty's forces in connection with discharge of the functions of the Crown in its relations with, Indian States.)

If His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States requests the assistance of armed forces for the due
discharge of those functions, it shall be the duty of the Governor-General in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation to cause the necessary forces to be employed accordingly.—[Mr. J. C. Davidson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.28 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope that this Clause will not occupy the time of the Committee for very long, because its purpose is to make explicit that which is already implicit in the Bill, namely, that the representative of the Crown should be able to have at his disposal the necessary armed forces to carry out the discharge of his function for the protection of the State. The representations were made, as hon. Members will see in page 35 of the White Paper by the Indian States to the effect that they thought that it would be better if some specific provision were made in the Bill making it clear that representative of the Crown would have at his disposal the necessary forces to implement the Crown's obligation in relation to the States, and the Government felt that it would not be proper or technically right not to accede to that request. That is the reason why this Clause has been submitted.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: What is meant by "His Majesty's Representative"? Is His Majesty's representative not the Governor-General himself?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes. The Viceroy.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: It is not a case of two separate people discharging these functions.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No.

10.30 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: The wording of the Clause is obscure. I have never been able to understand from the beginning of this Bill why the Government, having created so many precedents, could not have created the very valuable precedent of calling the Viceroy the Viceroy, instead of going through the absurdity of calling him:
His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown.
If we substitute for that rigmarole, the word "Viceroy," the Clause would read as follows:
If the Viceroy … requests the assistance of armed forces for the due discharge of those functions, it shall be the duty of the Governor-General
that is, the same person in a different capacity
in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation to cause the necessary forces to be employed accordingly.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend has made plain the necessity for these words. I am ready to believe that there is a legal necessity, because there cannot be any other conceivable reason for inserting the words. We might as well say that if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster requests the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Davidson) to do something, he shall do it. What is the object of putting these words in the Clause.

10.32 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I sympathise with my Noble Friend. Perhaps that is too patronising a phrase to use, so I will say that I appreciate the point which my Noble Friend has raised. The reason why this has been done was that it was very important to distinguish between the Governor-General as head of the Federation and the same individual in his capacity as the representative of the Crown in its relations with the Indian States. If we had used the words suggested by my Noble Friend we should have got into greater confusion than that which he suggests is caused by the use of the words in the Clause, because in every case in which the word Viceroy appeared it would not have been clear whether the Clause was referring to the same individual in his capacity as executive head of the Federation or in his capacity as His Majesty's Representative dealing with the Indian States. For that reason I believe that on the whole we get over the difficulties of terminology, as in Clause 3, by using the term "Governor-General" as applicable to the Viceroy in his capacity as head of the Federation, while the term "His Majesty's Representative" is used in regard to the exercise of functions required in his relations with the Indian States. My Noble Friend will see from Clause 3 (3) that it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint one person to fill
both offices. My Noble Friend may say that it is absurd to use the form which we adopt in the Clause, but I believe it would have been more difficult if the description which he suggests had been used.

10.35 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his sympathy. Anyone is grateful for the sympathy of a lawyer on a legal Clause. It is necessary that these legal points should be made quite clear to stupid laymen. I quite follow his explanation in regard to the different nomenclature, but am I right in thinking that the purpose of the Clause is that if the Viceroy decides that troops are necessary for the protection of the States, or in regard to any other sphere in which the Viceroy's paramountcy is solely concerned, he is entitled to call upon the Federation to foot the bill. Is that the real point? Are you not making the Viceroy certify to the Governor-General that the troops were required for Imperial purposes, which were not strictly Federation purposes? In that case the same gentleman in his capacity as Governor-General can authorise troops maintained by the Federation to be employed outside Federation purposes.

Sir A. KNOX: In plain English does not the Clause provide that if there is a rebellion in a native State the Viceroy can authorise the troops to march in and put down the rebellion?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I would say possible rebellion or conspiracy emanating from outside to upset the dynasty in a particular State. You must consider both sides. The situation really is simple. If the Viceroy in the exercise of his powers decides that he wants troops in order to carry out his treaty obligations to the States or for any other purpose in carrying out his functions of the Crown, he exercises, in his capacity as Governor-General, the executive authority of the Federation he can cause the forces to be employed accordingly. Whether they are paid for by the State in question or by the Federation is a matter which depends on circumstances.

Viscount WOLMER: I take it that would be applicable whether the State had acceded to the Federation or not?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes.

Mr. COCKS: In view of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) I would point out that the Clause also gives power to the Governor-General to employ troops in the case of a refractory Prince.

10.39 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: The difficulty really seems to arise when the Governor-General also acts as the Viceroy. There may be two persons, but it has been clearly explained that one person will hold the two offices and exercises these two ranges of power. Why not put that down in plain language?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Member is now getting quite outside the new Clause. The question as to whether these two positions may or may not be held by the same individual was settled on an earlier Clause of the Bill.

Colonel GRETTON: I am aware of that, but I am suggesting that the matter should be reconsidered before Report. The Government might greatly simplify this Clause and other passages in the Bill as well, if they used simple language. Why not use the term "Viceroy" instead of "His Majesty's Representative" in the proposed new Clause?

10.40 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: This Clause still leaves uncertain a point which I tried to raise on an earlier Clause, but which was held not to be in order on that occasion. That is the question of how a State should be dealt with in a case where the force required was not necessarily the Army under the direct orders of the Governor-General but a force of police—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is not in order in raising the matter on this occasion either.

Sir B. PETO: May I ask the Under-Secretary to make clearer the real import of this Clause? Is it not a matter of who is going to pay, in case the armed forces of the Crown are employed?

The CHAIRMAN: The question of payment does not arise on this Clause

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(Saving for East India Annuity Funds Act,1874,and Bombay Civil Fund Act, 1882.)

Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the East Indian Annuity Funds Act, 1874, and the Bombay Civil Fund Act, 1882, shall continue to have effect but subject to the following adaptations, that is to say, that anything to be done under the said Acts by or to the Secretary of State in Council shall, after the commencement of Part III of this Act, be done by or to the Secretary of State, and for any reference in the said Acts to the revenues of India there shall be substituted a reference to the revenues of the Federation.—[Mr. Butler.]

Brought up and read the First time.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Clause which saves the Bombay Civil Fund Act, 1882, and the East India Annuity Funds Act, 1874, and it reproduces the provisions of Section 96 (3b)of the existing Act. Its effect is to save any rights possessed by members of the Civil Service under these two Acts which govern their pensions. The only adaptation in the language of the Clause is that instead of using the term "Secretary of State in Council." we use the term "Secretary of State," as elsewhere in this Bill, and instead of" revenues of India," we use the term, "revenues of the Federation." As these Acts govern the conditions of pension of a number of Civil Servants, I think the Committee will agree that it is right to save them.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am afraid 1 do not know to what these Acts refer. Are the civil servants, for instance, who are affected by the Bombay Civil Fund Act connected with the Provincial service of Bombay as distinct from the all-India Service? Is the responsibility for safeguarding their pension rights a responsibility of the Province of Bombay or is it an all-India matter 1 The same question arises in the case of the other Act.

Mr. BUTLER: These Acts cover old obligations to the civil servants referred to, who have retired and are few in number. The Committee will agree that there might be legitimate anxiety among
them as to their pension rights and conditions if we did not save the Acts by a reference in this Bill.

Mr. JONES: I am not objecting to that. The point really is whether the responsibility is one that should more properly appertain to the Province of Bombay than to the whole of India.

Mr. BUTLER: I appreciate the hon. Member's point. It has been thought advisable that this should be on the revenues of the Federation and not on the revenues of the Province of Bombay.

10.45 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but really he has explained this new Clause in a very sloppy manner. I defy any Member of the Committee who is not on the Treasury Bench, and therefore not had access to the information which the Government naturally have, to say what will be the actual effect of this Clause. My hon. Friend says that these two funds affect certain civil servants. He has not told us how many and what sort of civil servants and in what way they are affected. I want to ask a number of questions and my hon. Friend must forgive me doing so because we are only doing our duty on the Committee stage by raising these points. The Government have put down a large number of new Clauses. I am very glad they have, for I recognise that nearly all of them, if not all, are put down to meet points which have been raised either during the Committee stage or on deputations which the Government have received. We have the right to be told, in fact we have a duty to ask, what the exact effect of those proposals is, because they are new to us.
Perhaps we private Members ought to have been able to read, up the Acts of Parliament referred to in this new Clause for ourselves, but, really, it has been physically impossible to keep pace with the number of subjects we have had to study in regard to the Clauses and Amendments with which we have had to deal during the last few days. Therefore, I do not make any apology for asking my hon. Friend these questions. Is this Clause put down to meet one of the points that were raised in a deputation to the Secretary of State recently from the All-India Services? Is it a point of that magnitude? Does it affect the whole Civil Ser
vice, or merely a small class of retired civil servants who. draw their pensions by virtue of these Acts of Parliament, which are not the Acts under which ordinary civil servants draw their pensions?

Mr. BUTLER: Will my Noble Friend ask his other questions?

Viscount WOLMER: It is rather difficult to frame some questions unless one knows the answers to the others. I am going to cross-examine my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We are entitled to do it in Committee, and it is our duty to do it. I want to know whether this is a big or a small question, and whether this Clause affects the great point made by the Indian civil servants that their pensions should be recoverable from the Secretary of State

The CHAIRMAN: I think I may answer that question by saying that it does not arise on this Clause.

Viscount WOLMER: I am very much obliged to you for that information, but as I am unaware of what is in these two Acts, it is impossible for me to know what the answer to that question is. I am merely trying to respond to the request of the Attorney-General that I should ask all my questions together. If he would be good enough to answer this preliminary question, it would make my subsequent points clearer. I am not in a position to know what the effect of these two Acts is.

Mr. COCKS: I rather think the Member for Aldershot is slower than usual. Surely all that this Clause means is that whatever in these other Acts can be done by the Secretary of State in Council can now be done by the Secretary of State.

Viscount WOLMER: Not at all. If it had not been for this Clause, these Acts would have been rejected.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Every one of us agrees with the Noble Lord that every member of the House should do his best to secure the pensions of these civil servants. I feel sure that no examination of any position in regard to them could be too close. Feeling very strongly on this matter, and as one who listened very carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend said just now, it does seem that this does definitely protect a very small
number of civil servants who retired a long time ago. That seems to be the effect of the Clause. Whether it goes further or not I cannot be sure, but I think we might, in our cross-examination, have the graciousness to thank the Government most sincerely for this small act on behalf of the civil servants. It is one of the things the Government are doing to try to make the position of retired civil servants absolutely secure. I have no hesitation in attacking the Government if I think right, but I do say that when the Government are trying to help, as I sincerely believe they are, they will not do less to help the civil servants if someone gets up and thanks them for what they are doing.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his unsolicited testimonial. I am afraid he differs in this respect from the Noble Lord who has been kind enough to offer some observations on my explanation of the Amendment to the House.

Viscount WOLMER: The last thing I desire to do is to criticise my hon. and learned Friend. [Hon. Members: "Sloppy."] His introduction to this Clause was sloppy. That was so unusual on his part that I felt I must comment on it.

Mr. BUTLER: On the first occasion on. which I have had a strict cross-examination from the Noble Lord, his imagination in contriving questions to ask me ran short very quickly, and he found only two questions from his fertile mind and his noble imagination. I will answer the two questions. He asked whether this was a big or a small point. I would say it was an extremely big point, considering that we are protecting the pensions of retired civil servants. From that point of view it is an extremely important point. As regards his second question as to whether this was raised in the Civil Service memorial, I am not quite certain of that point, but I think it was not. I think it was not a point put up to us by the Civil Service organisation. I speak subject to correction, but that is as far as my memory serves me. At any rate, it is a matter in which, in order to secure the position of men who retired a long time ago, the Government have themselves thought of a proviso which will be some
satisfaction, I hope, to them. We pay the best attention to memorials, but on some occasions we have to give ourselves the credit of having thought of things which the memorialists have thought of too. The Noble Lord referred to the question of the nature of these Acts. I am sure he will have read the requisite Sub-section—(3)—of Section 96b of the present Act;
Nothing in this section or in any rule thereunder shall prejudice the rights to which any person may or may have become entitled under the provisions in relation to pensions contained in the East India Annuity Funds Act, 1874.
That alludes to one of the particular Acts in question. If the Noble Lord would examine it with me we might get a closer knowledge of these points. At present I have only been able to gain the following knowledge of its contents, namely, that it secures to civil servants who have retired some time ago an absolute title to their pension and secures them against sequestration. In view of the contents of that Act, and in view of the contents of the Bombay Civil Fund Act, 1882, I think we should agree that it is well worth saying that notwithstanding anything in this Act those two particular Acts shall continue to have effect. I think that answers the points which the Noble Lord has raised—

Viscount WOLMER: No. There is one more. Do those Acts enable pensioners to sue the Secretary of State for pensions if they are withheld?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, from my knowledge of the Acts I can tell the Noble Lord that is so. I think that has answered all the questions which the Noble Lord raised, and I am sure it has done me good to have to answer him in more detail.

10.57 p.m.

Sir R.CRADDOCK: There is one point I should like to put. It is the case, as far as I am aware, that these Acts were passed when funds which had been collected by the Services themselves in Bengal, Madras and Bombay were finally taken over by the Government. The Government then undertook the liability of paying the pensions under this scheme, and that is why there is a particular obligation about these pensions. It was the money of the Services and was
administered by them until the whole business was eventually taken over by the Government.

10 58 p.m.

Sir B.PETO: I had listened to every word of this Debate, but until the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) intervened and asked those questions I had not the least idea of what the Clause was about. The statement made by the Under-Secretary in answer to the Noble Lord's questions has made every point abundantly clear, and has shown the necessity for the Clause, and it would have saved a great deal of time if we had had that statement at the beginning.

Clause added to the Bill.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[The Attorney-General.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the urban district council of Sowerby, which was presented on the 25th day of March and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

HOSIERY INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir A. Lambert Ward.]

11.3 p. m

Mr. LYONS: In pursuance of an intimation which I gave a little time ago, I desire to raise the question of Japanese competition in the importation of hosiery as affecting the British industry, and I would like at once to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for his readiness to make it convenient that this
opportunity should be taken to-night. I would like to make the position perfectly clear, as I see it. It is a very grave one for the City of Leicester, which is the centre of the hosiery industry in this country. In 1931 there came into this country something like 947, 400 dozen pairs of stockings from Japan. In 1932, met by the substantial duty which was imposed at the end of 1931 by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, there was a very substantial decrease in the figure. In 1933 there was an increase to a total of 906,000 dozen pairs, and in 1934 another increase to 939,898 dozen pairs. For the first three months of this year there are higher figures still, and one fears that if nothing is done, in 1935 there will be such an increase in the importation of Japanese stockings that the figure may be well over 1,100,000 dozen pairs, which will be equal to or will exceed the peak year long before the period I have mentioned.
The position is made grave in this way: I do not want to say a single sentence which would minimise the appreciation most of us have of the accomplishments of the Government, beset by great difficulties. Neither do we want to belittle the advantages which many industries have received from the tariff policy of the Government. But the position of the hosiery trade is grave in so far as we are met with an increasing figure of unemployment. In 1934, in the whole hosiery trade of this country, the unemployment figure was just over 11,000. In 1935, coincident with the great increase of Japanese-made hosiery imports, the figure is well over 20,000. In the city of Leicester the position has become acute and unemployment has risen steadily in the hosiery trade at the same time as there has been this great increase of Japanese goods.
It has been stated in this House in the last few days, on behalf of the Government, that the wage paid to the female hosiery worker in Japan averages 9d. a day. The wage paid to the male hosiery worker in Japan is an average of 1s. 9d. a day; it varies from Is. ½d. to Is. 10d. The wage paid to the hosiery worker in this country, as stated on Tuesday by the Minister of Labour, is something like £4 a week for a week of 48 hours. I make this appeal to-night on behalf of the men and women working in the hosiery trade,
whose standards of life we want to protect. It is no concern of ours what wages satisfy the Japanese workers. We are concerned that there shall be employment in the home market at proper wages under safeguarded conditions, and it is impossible to watch complacently the position which I have indicated, which is playing such havoc with the British industry.
There is in existence an Import Duties Advisory Committee, which can consider applications made to it by manufacturers. It was admitted to-day, and it has been admitted before, on behalf of the Government that power was given by this House when it passed the Act authorising the establishment of that body for that committee to act on its own initiative. I do not know whether the trade as a trade has made application for an increase in the tariff. I am not so much concerned for the manufacturers in this connection as for the men and women who are being put out of work by the entry of these goods made under conditions which may suit Japan but which to us are intolerable and which I hope we shall never see in the city of Leicester of elsewhere in this country. They have no right of organised access to this body, and therefore this House in its wisdom gave that authority power to act upon its own initiative. I should like to know why it is, that, realising these facts and with all the information at its disposal, this body has not acted or been invited to act on behalf of these people.
I appeal to my hon. Friend to say, on behalf of the Government, that some action will be taken, either by way of a duty which would make the entry of these goods well nigh impossible, or by way of real prohibition itself to prevent the entry altogether of any such goods which we could make ourselves in proper circumstances. I believe we all want to maintain and improve wherever possible our standards of life. We want to see industrial legislation protect and still further protect the working men and women in this industry. Nobody can suggest that the small duty which we now have, which has never been raised, and which is something like 20 per cent, on socks or stockings which are perhaps valued at 2d. or less, can in any way be effective to stop this great influx of Japanese-made hosiery. I therefore appeal, not
merely on behalf of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, but on behalf of the working classes as a whole in this industry, who have not the same remedy of approach, but who are dependent on the good offices of the Import Duties Advisory Committee or the Government, that the Government shall take some action to safeguard their employment and put an end to a condition which is intolerable.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I am very glad that the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) has raised this question, and I do not propose to argue with him the point he made about Leicester being the centre of the hosiery industry. This is an industry which affects my own constituency to a very considerable degree, and that is why I shall say a word or two on this occasion. I do not propose to supplement the figures which the hon. Member has given. I would rather deal with an entirely different point, namely, that up to the moment the relationships between the employers and the employes in the hosiery industry have been very good. It is very rare for there to be a dispute of any kind in this industry, and it has been quite easy to settle all wage agreements most amicably in the past.
I quite agree with the hon. Member for East Leicester when he says that wages in this industry are relatively high. There has been a possibility always of employers and employed coming to amicable arrangements about wages. There is no doubt, in view of existing conditions, that the wages of operatives in this industry are seriously threatened. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Leicester that it is impossible for hosiery manufacturers in this country to meet the competition of the flood of cheap goods now coming in, particularly from Japan. At the same time, I would point out that there is a similar form of competition in regard to artificial silk hosiery from Germany which is at the moment menacing the hosiery industry in this country. We are particularly desirous—those of us who are familiar with this industry—that the standards of the workers in this industry shall not be lowered by the competition which the industry is having to meet at the moment.
I am certain that my hon. Friends opposite, although they, do not belong to the same political party as I do, are equally desirous of protecting the standards of workers in this industry; and they will agree with me that those standards are very seriously menaced at this moment. The point I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. I have heard him use these arguments over and over again in the House. Every body supporting the protectionist policy of the Government puts forward the same arguments in defence of the protectionist system. The first argument is that a system of tariffs is designed to provide employment in this country. The second argument is that tariffs are designed to protect the British working man's standards of life. In regard to the hosiery trade it is quite certain that at the moment tariffs are quite ineffective to provide employment. It is equally certain that at the moment they are ineffective to protect the standards of life that have been achieved in the hosiery industry.
I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is time for the Government to examine this question. I further agree with the hon. Member for East Leicester that it is very doubtful if any rearrangement of the tariff can effectively deal with this flood of cheap hosiery which is being imported from Japan. One has some sympathy at the moment even with hosiery manufacturers. They are being compelled to cut piece-rates. Piece-rates are universal in the hosiery industry and now, owing to the present circumstances, some employers are being compelled to cut piece-rates which have prevailed for a long time. I do not defend that in any way. Unfortunately, there are certain black-leg firms in this country, outside the recognised hosiery area, which are definitely under-cutting manufacturers in the recognised hosiery area. That is very much to be deplored. Consequently, employers in other areas are bound, perhaps, in view of the competition that prevails, also to make attacks of the present wage standards. I join with other hon. Members in asking the Government to examine this question. My own personal view—and I want to express it as strongly as I can —is that if I had the power I would prohibit the importation into this country of these cheap, sweated goods
which are menacing the standards of life which numbers of our workers have acquired by organisation and negotiation over a long period of time. Now that we have this system which is claimed to provide employment and to protect standards of wages I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make representations in the proper place to see if something effective cannot be done for this section of the workers

11.15 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: It is good to hear fine, robust Protectionist sentiment from the Opposition Benches. I will not stand before the House and the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary for more than a few minutes. Like my hon. and learned Friend who raised this question, I represent a constituency which is vitally concerned with the largely increased importation of cheap hosiery. That importation is menacing the standard of employment and the stability of the industry in the city, of Nottingham. We are all indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for raising the subject to-night. The importation has increased by leaps and bounds. It is giving evidence of increasing at an accelerating rate and we shall all be interested to know whether anything is to be done about it.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what the industry itself has done about this matter. If the situation of each industry is to be debated upon the Floor of the House we are destroying the very function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us whether the industry has done anything to cope with the situation. In the columns of the Press in Nottingham, suggestions have been made that the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluckstein), the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn), and my humble self ought to have done something in this matter. Speaking for myself, we have not been approached on behalf of the industry. No representations of any sort or kind have been made to us and I have yet to learn that the industry has taken any step to make application in the proper quarter. If these facts are accurate the constituencies we represent and those who work in the industries ought to know
them, and to know that the industry has not made use of any organisation to put their case before the Advisory Committee.
In the circumstances, one feels that it is almost verging on impertinence for hon. Members representing the constituencies to take upon themselves the burden of putting forward a case on behalf of an industry which the industry does not think fit to bring it forward on its own account. I hope that we may learn what the situation is, whether any steps have been taken, and whether the reasonable representations of the industry have been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We should then be justified in raising the subject anew in this House.

11.19 p.m.

Colonel BROADBENT: I wish to express appreciation for the help that has been given to the cotton trade by the President of the' Board of Trade and by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I know that the help that has been given has had a good effect. I should like also to congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) for at last taking up this subject, which is of so much importance.

Mr. C. BROWN: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but I have taken up this subject on many occasions.

Colonel BROADBENT: I am very pleased to hear that. Only last week, in the Manchester area, in one cellar, I saw 700 bales, or at any rate I saw a great quantity of bales, and I was informed that there were 700. Hon. Members may not know that a bale of cotton consists of 20 pieces of cloth, each measuring 120 yards, so that these 700 bales contained almost 2,000,000 square yards of cotton cloth. That cloth had come from Japan. It was not printed; it was to be printed in this country; and on its selvedge would be marked "Printed in England." I doubt very much whether people in this country would recognise the difference between that Japanese cloth, with those words printed on the selvedge, as English cloth. Therefore I feel that more protection is needed in this matter. If the Parliamentary Secretary requires any more information I shall be very glad to give him full particulars.

11.22 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SEORETARY to the BOARD of TRADE(Dr. Burgin): One of the difficulties in. dealing with these matters on the Adjournment is to compress into the few minutes left for the Government speaker adequate answers to the important speeches that have been made. I gathered that the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) did not claim to represent the views of the National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers' Associations, but rather gave the House to understand that he was speaking more for the operative side, and did not claim to represent the industry. I think that must be the case from the information in my possession. I say at once that the choice before the hosiery industry as a whole is either to make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee— which they have not yet done—or to continue the alternative line, which they have followed, of direct negotiation with the Japanese exporters. As the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) has said, the industry must make up its own mind what it is to do, and, until some strong and definite line has been taken, it is difficult to do more than make some conjectural reply.
The hosiery trade is a great and efficient industry. It is not only technically efficient, but is very efficient in the way in which it is dealing with foreign competition. I have an admiration for the way in which the leaders of the industry are realising the importance of this competition, not merely from one country, because there are other aspects of this competition than the Japanese aspect, with which the industry is dealing very capably. The Government are kept, by the accredited association of the industry, in the closest possible touch with all movements—the state of trade and the position regarding imports from abroad— and they are in close touch with the Government. On 6th December I received a very strong representative deputation from all branches of the industry in which every one of the points that have been discussed to-day was fully threshed out, and when the advice and assistance of the Government was given to the industry; and from those proceedings wide publicity has resulted.

Mr. CAPORN: Was the advice then given that they should not at that stage
go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly not. The advice then given, in the clearest possible terms, was that the industry must make up its mind which of two methods it would pursue—either to trust to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to assist it by tariffs or to negotiate direct with the Japanese exporters. The industry, with those two alternatives before it and knowing the facts better than anyone else-could, has elected to adopt direct negotiation. That is the position; do not let us have any misunderstanding about it. The Government have not merely kept themselves extremely well-informed even down to within two or three days ago of the movements in the trade, but they appreciate the difficulties with which the trade is confronted as a result of the development of the Japanese industry, I have all the details here as to the increase in imports. Do not, however, let us stress too much this increase in imports. I know that during the early part of last year there was a heavy increase in the imports of cotton stockings and underwear from Japan, but in the second half of last year there was some decline. I do not want to suggest that these imports are not a very serious item, but I do not want us to be defeatists in the way in which we deal with the imports of cheap cotton wear from Japan. As well as unemployment, there is the factor, which the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester did not mention, of under-employment, and on all these matters the Government are fully informed.
What are the methods open to the industry? The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester said, "Either give us a tariff, an ad valorem or a specific duty, or else prohibition." I think that the House must realise that it is no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to have a quota or prohibition for manufactured goods. It must be definitely realised that that is not possible. One cannot argue it in the last few minutes in a speech in reply at this hour of the night, but it is a perfectly definite line of policy that there shall not be quotas for manufactured goods or prohibition. It leaves the industry with the ordinary method of approach to the Advisory Committee, which they have
not taken. The course is perfectly clear, either to the responsible association of employés or to the manufacturers, because it is quite wrong to assume that the employés cannot make their application.

Mr. CAPORN: The President denied that the employés could do so. An application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee that they should take stock of the position can be made by any recognised association of the industry.

Mr. LYONS: Or by themselves.

Dr. BURGIN: Or by themselves, of course. The Import Duties Advisory Committee can volunteer a recommendation to the Government at any time. That has been made transparently manifest in regard to the devaluation of Belgian currency. But talking of the subject we have before us to-night either the Import Duties Advisory Committee must take stock of the matter upon the application of the industry or on their own account, or else through the negotiations which it has thought fit to undertake with the Japanese exporters, the industry should see if there is any possible line of agree
ment open in that way. Until those different remedies have been explored, utilised or exhausted it is nothing more than a review of the position that I am able to make to-night. I make no complaint about the matter having been raised. The Government are fully informed on the matter and they are kept informed by the recognised associations.

Mr. CAPORN: Did I rightly understand my hon. Friend to say that an association of employés can go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee? In answer to a question I put to the President of the Board of Trade the other day, I understood him to say that employés could not do that.

Dr. BURGIN: There is no limit to who can approach the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is the proper right of a responsible association in the industry to communicate with the Import Duties Advisory Committee if only for the purpose of giving information.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the Rouse, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.